Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Since 1992, the Supreme Court has declared laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment when the federal government compelled the states to enforce federal statutes.

In New York v. United States (1992),[22] the Supreme Court invalidated part of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in this case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court ruled that imposing that obligation on a state violates the Tenth Amendment. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (e.g. attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole,[23]) or through the commerce power (directly pre-empt state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.

In Printz v. United States (1997),[24] the Court ruled that part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment. The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on people attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the act violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program", it was unconstitutional.[24]

In Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018),[25] the Supreme Court ruled that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which prohibited states that banned sports betting when the law was enacted from legalizing it, violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and invalidated the entire law. The Court ruled that the anti-commandeering doctrine applied to congressional attempts to prevent the states from taking a certain action as much as it applied in New York and Printz to Congress requiring states to enforce federal law.[26]

In the 20th century, the Commerce Clause has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress's power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government.[27] Complex economic challenges arising from the Great Depression triggered a reevaluation in both Congress and the Supreme Court of the use of Commerce Clause powers to maintain a strong national economy.[28]

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942),[29] in the context of World War II, the Court ruled that federal regulation of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm, i.e. fed to animals or otherwise consumed on the premises. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market.

In United States v. Lopez (1995),[30] a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment or the Court's 1985 Garcia decision.

Most recently, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005),[31] a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical cannabis crop was seized and destroyed by federal agents. Medical cannabis was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215, despite cannabis being prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew cannabis strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own cannabis affects the interstate market of cannabis. In theory the product could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly had not been grown for that purpose and was unlikely ever to reach any market (the same reasoning as in Wickard v. Filburn). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the Commerce Clause.

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958),[32] the Supreme Court dealt with states' rights and the Tenth Amendment. The case came about when conflicts arose in direct response to the ruling of another landmark case, Brown v. Board of Education (1954).[33] In Brown, the Supreme Court unanimously declared racial segregation of children in public schools unconstitutional.[34] Following Brown, the court ordered district courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation "with all deliberate speed".[34]

Among those opposing the decision (and all efforts of desegregation) was the Governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus.[34] A group of black students known as the Little Rock Nine were to attend the previously all-white Central High School under the school board's attempt to follow the order of Brown. The tension became severe when Governor Faubus ordered the National Guard to prevent the nine from entering the school and President Eisenhower responded with federal troops to escort them.[35]

Five months after the integration crisis happened, the school board filed suit in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas requesting a two-and-a-half-year delay in implementing desegregation.[36] Although the district court granted the relief, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision on August 18, 1958, and stayed its mandate pending appeal to the Supreme Court.[36] By this time, the incident had evolved into a national issue: it had become a debate not only on racism and segregation but also on states' rights and the Tenth Amendment.

The Court, citing first the Supremacy Clause of Article VI declaring the Constitution the supreme law of the land, and second the Marbury v. Madison decision asserting the Court as the supreme interpreter of the Constitution as evidence of their superior authority, reaffirmed Brown and held that the states must abide by the Court's decisions despite disagreements.[36] Expectedly, many states' right advocates and state officials criticized the ruling as an attack on the Tenth Amendment that reserves the states' right to resist the implementation of federal law or the Federal Constitution.[37] Moreover, they claimed the Court's decision on Cooper as being inconsistent with the constitutional vision of the Framers.[37]

The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government, as held in Printz v. United States.[24]

For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by encouraging States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, 0.08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age[23] were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws (though the national speed limit has since been repealed).

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012),[38] the Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as the ACA or Obamacare) unconstitutionally coerced the states to expand Medicaid. The Court classified the ACA's language as coercive because it effectively forced States to join the federal program by conditioning the continued provision of Medicaid funds on states agreeing to materially alter Medicaid eligibility to include all individuals who fell below 133% of the poverty line.