Basically Law

Read the decision here.

Issue.  Does Congress have the power to command the States' executive power to enforce federal law?

Background.  In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act in order to combat gun violence.  Under the law, the Attorney General was to implement a national gun check system, but an interim provision was put into place until the national gun check system became operative.  Under the interim system, a firearm dealer wishing to sell a firearm must provide information of the buyer to the "chief law enforcement officer" ("CLEO") of the buyer's residence.  The CLEO has five days to reasonably determine if sale of the gun would violate the law.  If the CLEO determines that the purchase violated the law, the CLEO is not required to do anything.  But, if the CLEO does decide to act, the CLEO must notify the buyer of the reason for rejecting the sale and give the buyer an opportunity to challenge that decision.

Two CLEOs challenged the constitutionality of the interim provision.  The Court of Appeals rejected the CLEOs contention and the case was appealed.  The Supreme Court reversed and found that the interim provision to be an un-Constitutional use of Congressional power.

Court's Analysis.  Since the Constitution does not say whether Congress could command State executives to enforce federal programs, the Court looked to the Federalist Papers and early legislation to glean the Founder's intent.  There was nothing in the Federalist Papers to suggest such power.  Further, there had been no legislation that compelled a State's executive to enforce federal law.  There had been voluntary enforcement from the States as well as some direction to the judiciaries of the States.  But, there has never been any law where Congress forced a State's executive to enforce federal law.

That fact alone, however, does not resolve the issue.  The Court examined precedent where the Courts prevented the Federal Government from commandeering State actors to enforce federal regulatory programs and saw that this situation was no different.  In sum, this was an unprecedented and unconstitutional use of Congressional authority.

Ultimately, the Court held:

Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition [forcing a State to enforce a federal regulatory program] by conscripting the States' officers directly.  The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.  It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary, such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.