Printz v. United States

E13965

Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.

AI illustration

How this image was made

AI-generated illustration of Printz v. United States

This AI-generated illustration was produced by black-forest-labs/FLUX.2-dev (1024x1024) from a prompt written by openai/gpt-oss-120b from the entity's label + description.

Prompt

Generate an image of Printz v. United States (Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.)

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (50)

Predicate Object
instanceOf Tenth Amendment case ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
anti-commandeering doctrine case ⓘ
federalism case ⓘ
areaOfLaw United States federalism ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ
arguedDate 1996-12-03 ⓘ
background challenged interim provisions of the Brady Act requiring local chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks on handgun purchasers ⓘ
citation 521 U.S. 898 ⓘ
citedIn Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association ⓘ
NFIB v. Sebelius ⓘ
concurrenceBy Clarence Thomas ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInvolved Necessary and Proper Clause ⓘ
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 1997-06-27 ⓘ
decisionType majority decision with dissents ⓘ
dissentBy David H. Souter ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ
Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
docketNumber 95-1478 ⓘ
effect limited Congress's ability to require state executive officials to carry out federal law ⓘ
fullCaseName Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, et al. v. United States ⓘ
holding Congress may not commandeer state or local executive officials to implement federal regulatory programs ⓘ
provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring state and local chief law enforcement officers to conduct background checks are unconstitutional ⓘ
issue whether Congress may compel state and local executive officials to administer a federal regulatory program ⓘ
joinedByInMajority Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ
Sandra Day O'Connor ⓘ
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
jurisdiction appellate jurisdiction from lower federal courts ⓘ
language English opinion ⓘ
legalDoctrine anti-commandeering doctrine ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Antonin Scalia ⓘ
petitioner Jay Printz ⓘ
petitionerOccupation Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana ⓘ
precedentFor limiting federal power over state executive officials ⓘ
rearguedDate 1997-01-14 ⓘ
reinforces New York v. United States (1992) anti-commandeering principle ⓘ
relatedStatute Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ⓘ
reporter United States Reports ⓘ
respondent United States ⓘ
result Brady Act interim background check mandate on state officers invalidated ⓘ
subjectMatter federalism and separation of powers ⓘ
gun control background checks ⓘ
volume 521 ⓘ
vote 5-4 ⓘ
year 1997 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (16)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

New York v. United States (1992) → laterCitedIn → Printz v. United States (1997) ⓘ
linked to: Printz v. United States
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association → relatedPrecedent → Printz v. United States (1997) ⓘ
linked to: Printz v. United States
Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana → notableCourtCase → Printz v. United States ⓘ
Jay Printz → participantIn → Printz v. United States ⓘ
Rehnquist Court → landmarkDecision → Printz v. United States ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases → hasPart → Printz v. United States ⓘ
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment → relatedPrecedent → Printz v. United States (1997) ⓘ
linked to: Printz v. United States
PASPA was struck down as unconstitutional → relatedCase → Printz v. United States (1997) ⓘ
linked to: Printz v. United States
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act → constitutionalChallengeCase → Printz v. United States ⓘ
subject linked to: Brady Act
anti-commandeering doctrine → articulatedIn → Printz v. United States (1997) ⓘ
linked to: Printz v. United States
anti-commandeering doctrine → extendedIn → Printz v. United States (1997) ⓘ
linked to: Printz v. United States
anti-commandeering doctrine → hasKeyCase → Printz v. United States (1997) ⓘ
linked to: Printz v. United States