The Supremes ruling in 1997 was but a partial victory for states' rights advocates. Bottom line in this case: the County Sheriff in question was allowed to ignore enforcement provisions of the Brady Act which among other things, required registration of all gun owners. Recap with case details shown below: Petitioners, chief law enforcement officials (CLEO) of their respectivecounties, objected to being pressed into federal service and contended that congressional action that compelled state officers to execute Federal Laws was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed and held that the interim provisions violated constitutional principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers. Congress could not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Congress could not circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the state's officers directly. The Brady Act effectively transferred the executive branch's responsibility to administer federal laws to thousands of CLEOs in 50 states, who were left to implement the program without meaningful presidential control.
Details: Docket No.: 95-1478
Petitioner: Printz
Respondent: United States
Consolidation:
No. 95-1503
Decided By: Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)
Opinion: 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Argued: Tuesday, December 3, 1996
Decided: Friday, June 27, 1997
Issues: Federalism, Natural Resources, Miscellaneous
Categories: supremacy clause, tenth amendment, federalism, congress, presidency
Copyright © 2026 eLLeNow.com All Rights Reserved.
