- [Narrator] The United States Supreme Court
is known to save the announcement
of its most controversial case
for the last day of each term.
It's no wonder that Printz versus United States
was announced just as the justices were headed out the door
to close the 1997 term.
The case raises deeply divisive issues
involving gun control and the balance of power
between the states and the federal government.
Enacted by Congress in 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act was a federal gun control statute
that established a nationwide
handgun background check system.
While gearing up to implement the nationwide system,
interim provisions of the Brady Act
temporarily required state and local officials,
rather than federal officials, to conduct
the background checks of prospective firearm purchasers.
Under these interim provisions, firearm sellers
were required to report pending firearm sales
to county police chiefs who were then required
to conduct a background check and validate the sale.
County sheriffs Joe Printz and Richard Mack
brought separate lawsuits arguing that the Brady Act
unconstitutionally compelled state officers
to enforce a federal statute.
Both district courts agreed and struck down the provision
as unconstitutional.
The court of appeals for the ninth circuit
consolidated the cases and reversed,
holding that the interim provision was constitutional.
The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
The issue before the court was whether Congress
can compel state officials to participate
in the implementation of a federal program.
The court held that under the
10th Amendment's anti-commandeering principle,
Congress may not compel state officials
to administer a federal regulatory program.
Justice Scalia, writing for the five to four court,
explained that there was no historical evidence
that Congress ever had the power to compel
state executives into federal service.
Early congressional enactments showed
that the constitution allowed the imposition
of federal standards only on state judges
who apply those standards in deciding cases,
but not on officers of the state's executive branch.
Next, Scalia considered how the Brady Act
conflicted with constitutional structure.
First, the 10th Amendment sets up
a system of dual sovereignty under which
the states retain a significant amount of autonomy.
Scalia noted that the act upset the careful balance of power
between the federal government in the states.
Federal power would increase dramatically, Scalia reasoned,
if it could enlist into service
the police officers of the 50 states.
Additionally, the court held that the Brady Act
violated the constitutional separation of powers principle
because the power to execute the laws is provided
to the president and federal
executive branch officials only.
Congress can't delegate federal executive power
to state law enforcement officers
as it attempted to do here.
Lastly, the court cited New York versus United States
which had determined that Congress can't force
state legislators to enact laws
according to federal instructions.
Scalia concluded that because Congress
can't mandate state legislatures to act,
it can't mandate state executive officers to act either.
As a result, the court held that the Brady Act's
employment of state officers to conduct
background searches was unconstitutional.
The court reversed the court of appeals.
Justice O'Connor filed a concurring opinion
to note that state officials could still voluntarily
comply with the Brady Act, despite the court's decision.
Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion
agreeing with the court's analysis
but further arguing that under the current state
of the commerce clause doctrine,
congress didn't have the authority
to regulate the in-state transfer of firearms.
Justice Stevens dissented.
He argued that Congress had the authority
to enact the Brady Act under the commerce clause.
Congress may also impose enforcement obligations
on state officials under the necessary and proper clause.
Stevens reasoned that the framers envisioned a system
in which the federal government may act
for the benefit of the nation as a whole,
and this sometimes requires the power
to make demands on state officials.
In another dissenting opinion,
Justice Souter examined the text of a federalist paper,
the supremacy clause, and oaths taken
by state officers to advance the argument
that state officials can be enlisted into service
on behalf of the national government.
Finally, Justice Breyer also dissenting,
cited examples from foreign nations
to demonstrate that successful systems of government
employed local authorities
to carry out national regulations.
Printz versus United States was a monumental federalism case
memorable for its narrow interpretation of federal power
and its staunch protection of
state autonomy from federal incursion.