The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the powers of the federal government are limited to those powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be a
truism by the Supreme Court. In
United States v. Sprague (1932) the
Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified." States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of
labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from
United States v. Darby Lumber Co., reads as follows: In
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), the Court overruled
National League of Cities v. Usery (1976). Under
National League of Cities, the determination of whether there was state immunity from federal regulation turned on whether the state activity was "traditional" for or "integral" to the state government. In
Garcia, the Court noted that this analysis was "unsound in principle and unworkable in practice", and concluded that the
framers believed state sovereignty could be maintained by the political system established by the Constitution. Noting that the same Congress that extended the
Fair Labor Standards Act to cover government-run mass transit systems also provided substantial funding for those systems, the Court concluded that the structure created by the Framers had indeed protected the states from overreaching by the federal government. In
South Carolina v. Baker (1988), the Court said in
dicta that an exception to
Garcia would be when a state lacked "any right to participate" in the federal political process or was left "politically isolated and powerless" by a federal law.
Commandeering Since 1992, the
Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing states to pass or not pass certain legislation, or to enforce federal law. In
New York v. United States (1992), 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 had not been disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to such waste. The Court ruled that imposing that obligation on a state violated 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., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see
South Dakota v. Dole,) or through the commerce power (which allows it directly to preempt state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. In
Printz v. United States (1997), 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 conclude 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. 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. In
Wickard v. Filburn (1942), 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), a federal law mandating a "
gun-free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing the federal law. 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), 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.
Supremacy Clause In
Cooper v. Aaron (1958), 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). In
Brown, the Supreme Court unanimously declared racial segregation of children in public schools unconstitutional. Following
Brown, the court ordered district courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation "with all deliberate speed." Among those opposing the decision, and all efforts of desegregation, was the governor of Arkansas,
Orval Faubus. Although the previously all-white
Central High School and its school board attempted to follow the decision of
Brown, Faubus intervened to physically block the students, known as the
Little Rock Nine. Sending 250
Arkansas National Guard troops to keep the school all-white, the governor received the attention of President
Dwight D. Eisenhower, who responded with federal troops to escort the students onto campus. Five months after the integration crisis happened, the school board filed suit in the federal
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas requesting a two-and-a-half-year delay in implementing desegregation. Although the district court granted the relief, the
Eighth Circuit reversed the decision on August 18, 1958, and stayed its mandate pending appeal to the Supreme Court. By this time, the incident had evolved into national debate about racism and segregation in addition to the question of states' rights and the Tenth Amendment. The Court cited the
Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which declares the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, and
Marbury v. Madison in holding that the states must abide by the Court's decision in
Brown. Moreover, they claimed the Court's decision on
Cooper as being inconsistent with the constitutional vision of the Framers. In the
19th century, several states relied on this interpretation to declare nullification of federal laws or decisions of the US Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court struck down all such efforts. Among the most famous was the
Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina
declared the
tariffs of 1828 and
1832 void in the state, but it was resolved when tariffs were lowered to South Carolina's satisfaction and when President
Andrew Jackson threatened military intervention unless the state relented. The
Civil War, however, ended all appeals to state sovereignty and the Supreme Court's authority as the highest interpreter of constitutional law stopped to be challenged. The idea of nullification gained new traction in the 1950s as the Supreme Court ordered
desegregation of schools in
Brown v. Board of Education, and Southern states in response mounted a campaign of
massive resistance to oppose it, arguing that federal desegregation orders infringed on
states' rights. Ten ex-Confederate states passed declarations of interposition to oppose these efforts. But the Supreme Court in
Cooper v. Aaron rejected the declarations and held nullification and interposition impermissible. Today, laws that appear to circumvent some Supreme Court decisions or federal law may sometimes be called laws of nullification, including in cases if they do not explicitly urge to defy federal law or resist federal authority. Examples of this usage include the
Texas Heartbeat Act and the Missouri
Second Amendment Preservation Act or immigration and marijuana laws.
Federal funding 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. 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. ==See also==