Printz v. United States

Last updated

Printz v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 3, 1996
Decided June 27, 1997
Full case nameJay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, Petitioner 95-1478 v. United States; Richard Mack, Petitioner 95-1503 v. United States
Citations521 U.S. 898 ( more )
117 S. Ct. 2365; 138 L. Ed. 2d 914; 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4044; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5096; 97 Daily Journal DAR 8213; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 224
Case history
Priordeclaring unconstitutional, 854 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Mont. 1994), same, 856 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Ariz. 1994), reversing, 66 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1995).
Holding
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's interim provision commanding the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
ConcurrenceO'Connor
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentStevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
DissentSouter
DissentBreyer, joined by Stevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. X; U.S. Const. amend. II; Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Contents

Background

The Gun Control Act of 1968

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), Pub. L 90-618 and subsequent amendments established a detailed Federal program governing the distribution of firearms. The GCA prohibited firearms ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety: convicted felons, convicted misdemeanor domestic violence or stalking offenders, persons with an outstanding felony warrant, fugitives from justice, unlawful aliens, persons with court-mandated protective orders issued against them, persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, adjudicated mentally ill by a court, and others.

Persons disqualified from firearms ownership for mental health reasons can apply to have this disability removed. States that do not maintain an application process to allow persons disqualified for mental health reasons to obtain relief from firearms prohibition face Justice Assistance Grant penalties. Section 105 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), cited as Pub. L. 110–180, § 105, provides for restoration of firearm ownership rights in mental health cases. Under NIAA it is up to each U.S. state to come up with its own application process; thus the procedure to regain one's rights varies from state-to-state.

The Brady Act

On November 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103–159, amending the 1968 Gun Control Act. This "Brady Bill" required the United States Attorney General to establish an electronic or phone-based background check to prevent firearms sales to persons already prohibited from owning firearms. This check, entitled the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), went into effect as required on November 30, 1998.

Interim provisions

The Act also immediately put in place certain interim provisions until that system became operative. Under the interim provisions, a firearms dealer who proposes to transfer a handgun must receive from the transferee a statement (the Brady Form), containing the transferee's name and address, and the date the proposed transfer is to take place, along with a sworn statement that the transferee is not among any of the classes of prohibited purchasers, verify the identity of the transferee by examining an identification document, and provide the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of the transferee's residence with notice of the contents (and a copy) of the Brady Form.

When a CLEO receives the required notice of a proposed transfer, they must "make a reasonable effort to ascertain within 5 business days whether receipt or possession would be in violation of the law, including research in whatever State and local recordkeeping systems are available and in a national system designated by the Attorney General."

The plaintiffs

Petitioners Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the Chief Law Enforcement Officers for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, represented by Stephen Halbrook and David T. Hardy respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. They objected to the use of congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law.

Lower court decisions

On May 16, 1994, United States District Judge Charles C. Lovell granted the Sheriff declaratory judgment, finding that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also concluding that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place. [1] On June 29, 1994, United States District Judge John Roll reached the same conclusion. [2] Those judgments were reversed on September 8, 1995, by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge William C. Canby Jr., joined by Judge Herbert Choy, over the dissent of Judge Ferdinand Francis Fernandez. [3]

The Second Circuit also rejected a sheriff's challenge to the mandate, [4] but the Fifth Circuit found that the mandate was unconstitutional, [5] creating a circuit split. [6]

Supreme Court

The Montana and Arizona Sheriffs' petition for a writ of certiorari was granted and one-hour of oral arguments were heard on December 3, 1996, where Hallbrook appeared for the sheriffs and Walter E. Dellinger III, the acting Solicitor General of the United States, appeared for the Government. [7]

Opinion of the Court

On June 27, 1997, the last day of the term, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [7] Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist alongside Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, found that the Brady Act's attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [7] In writing for the majority opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia stated that, although there is no constitutional text precisely responding to the challenge, an answer can be found "in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court."

Historical understanding and practice

Founding era Acts of Congress imposing obligations on state judges are not evidence of federal power over state officials because, according to the Court, the Madisonian Compromise had agreed to leave the creation of lower federal courts optional. [8] The Court rejected the Government's argument that Federalist No. 36, Federalist No. 45, and Federalist No. 27 anticipated that Congress would "make use" of state officials. [9] Rather, the Court viewed "almost two centuries of apparent congressional avoidance of the practice" as strong evidence that Congressmen did not think they had the power to command state officials. [6]

The structure of the Constitution

The Court explained that federalism in the United States is based upon "dual sovereignty", quoting Federalist No. 39's assurance that states retain "a residual and inviolable sovereignty". [6] The Court stated that the Framers designed the Constitution to allow Federal regulation of international and interstate matters, not internal matters reserved to the State Legislatures.

The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials. [10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51's argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." [11] [12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained:

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known. See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws

Finally, the Court applied its past jurisprudence. [6] The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials. [6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly. [6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional. [6]

Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, alone, highlighting that the Court's holding left local Chief Law Enforcement Officers free to voluntarily comply with the federal mandate. [6]

Justice Thomas also added a concurrence, alone, clarifying that, in his opinion, Congress's interstate Commerce Clause powers do not apply to purely intrastate firearms transfers. [6] Thomas went on to urge the Court in a future case to consider whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals a personal right to own firearms and to consider the "colorable argument" that federal gun laws would violate that right. [6]

Dissents

Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, respectfully dissented. [7] Justice Stevens suggested the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, giving the Federal government the right to regulate handgun sales, can be coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, giving Congress the power to pass whatever laws are necessary and proper to carry out its previously enumerated power. The Tenth Amendment, Stevens explained, contains no additional limitations on federal power, serving merely to clarify that the Government has only those powers granted by the Constitution. [6]

Stevens extolled the benefits of cooperative federalism. [6] Federal direction of state officials in this manner is analogous to ordering the mass inoculation of children to forestall an epidemic, or directing state officials to respond to a terrorist threat. He was very concerned with the ability of the federal government to respond to a national emergency and did not believe that "there is anything in the 10th amendment 'in historical understanding and practice, in the structure of the Constitution, or in the jurisprudence of this Court,' that forbids the enlistment of state officers to make that response effective." Moreover, the text of the Constitution does not support the Majority's apparent proposition that "a local police officer can ignore a command contained in a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to an express delegation of power enumerated in Article I."

Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion alone, emphasizing that he read Federalist No. 27 as providing ample evidence that the Framers' original intent was to require states to act as auxiliaries of the Federal government. [6]

Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Stevens, using international comparative law to observe that the federalism found in many foreign countries gives the central government some authority over sub-national jurisdictions. [6]

Subsequent developments

The immediate effects of the ruling on the Brady Bill were negligible. The vast majority of local and state law enforcement officials supported the interim provisions and were happy to comply with the background checks.[ citation needed ] The issue ended with the completion of the federal background check database. However, Printz v. United States was an important ruling in support of States' rights and the New Federalism.

Professor Ann Althouse has suggested that Printz applies to the U.S. government response to the September 11 attacks because "state and local government autonomy can exert pressure on the federal government to moderate its efforts and take care not to offend constitutional rights." [13]

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court adopted the suggestion from Justice Thomas's concurrence that the Constitution grants individuals a personal right to own firearms. The Heller decision lead to the Supreme Court Case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) that ruled that the ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United States</span> Supreme law of the US since 1789

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, on March 4, 1789. Originally including seven articles, the Constitution delineates the frame of the federal government. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, in which the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress ; the executive, consisting of the president and subordinate officers ; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Article IV, Article V, and Article VI embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article VII establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to ratify it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating states rights

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the people.

New Federalism is a political philosophy of devolution, or the transfer of certain powers from the United States federal government back to the states. The primary objective of New Federalism, unlike that of the eighteenth-century political philosophy of Federalism, is the restoration of some of the autonomy and power, which individual states had lost to the federal government as a result of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act</span> Mandate for background checks on firearm purchasers in the U.S.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, often referred to as the Brady Act, the Brady Bill or the Brady Handgun Bill, is an Act of the United States Congress that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States. It also imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases until the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was implemented in 1998. Introduced by U.S. representative Chuck Schumer of New York, the Brady Act was a landmark legislative enactment during the Clinton administration. The act was appended to the end of Section 922 of title 18, United States Code. The intention of the act was to prevent persons with previous serious convictions from purchasing firearms.

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, is a clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which international legal obligations are incorporated into federal law under the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalism in the United States</span> Division of powers between national, state, tribal and local governments

In the United States, federalism is the constitutional division of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states and toward the national government. The progression of federalism includes dual, cooperative, and New Federalism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Instant Criminal Background Check System</span> US system for determining if prospective firearms or explosives buyers are eligible to buy

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a background check system in the United States created by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 to prevent firearm sales to people prohibited under the Act. The system was launched by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1998. Under the system, firearm dealers, manufacturers or importers who hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL) are required to undertake a NICS background check on prospective buyers before transferring a firearm. The NICS is not intended to be a gun registry, but is a list of persons prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. By law, upon successfully passing the background check, the buyer's details are to be discarded and a record on NICS of the firearm purchase is not to be made. However as an FFL holder, the seller is required to keep a record of the transaction.

Dual federalism, also known as layer-cake federalism or divided sovereignty, is a political arrangement in which power is divided between the federal and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the federal government. Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism, in which federal and state governments collaborate on policy.

Commandeering is an act of appropriation by the military or police whereby they take possession of the property of a member of the public.

Cooperative federalism, also known as marble-cake federalism, is defined as a flexible relationship between the federal and state governments in which both work together on a variety of issues and programs.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the federal government may not require states to “take title” to radioactive waste through the "Take Title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which the Court found to exceed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Court permitted the federal government to induce shifts in state waste policy through other means.

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws that they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same. The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, although jury nullification has.

Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) against a Tenth Amendment challenge.

The constitutional law of the United States is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. The ultimate authority upon the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality of statutes, state and federal, lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court in that case to exercise the power of judicial review: the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.

Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that making arrangements for a straw purchase of a gun is in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and is different from re-selling or gifting a previously purchased gun. In the Abramski case, a former police officer from Virginia took advantage of a local discount to buy a gun for his uncle and later transferred it to Pennsylvania—the uncle's residence—using the appropriate federal procedure. During the purchase, Abramski falsely declared that he was purchasing the gun for himself.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) [138 S. Ct. 1461], was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The issue was whether the U.S. federal government has the right to control state lawmaking. The State of New Jersey, represented here by Governor Philip D. Murphy, sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned, allowing state-sponsored sports betting. The case, formerly titled Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association until Governor Chris Christie left office, was combined with NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA No. 16-477.

References

  1. ↑ Printz v. United States, 854 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Mont. 1994).
  2. ↑ Mack v. United States, 856 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Ariz. 1994).
  3. ↑ Mack v. United States, 66 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1995).
  4. ↑ Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 830 (2d Cir. 1996), vacated, 117 S. Ct. 2501 (1997) (mem.)
  5. ↑ Koog v. United States, 79 F.3d 452, 462 (5th Cir. 1996)
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The Supreme Court, 1996 Term — Leading Cases, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 207 (1997).
  7. 1 2 3 4 ""Printz v. United States"". Oyez Project . Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. Retrieved February 7, 2017.
  8. ↑ Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 907 (1997) citing Warren (1928), C. The Making of the Constitution, pp. 325–327.
  9. ↑ Printz at 910.
  10. ↑ Printz at 930 citing Merritt (1994), "Three Faces of Federalism: Finding a Formula for the Future", 47 Vanderbilt Law Review 1563, 1580, n. 65.
  11. ↑ Printz at 922 citing The Federalist No. 51, at 323.
  12. ↑ "Federalist No 51" – via The Avalon Project.
  13. ↑ Althouse (2004), "The Vigor of the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine in Times of Terror", 69 Brooklyn Law Review 1231.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.