In which case did the Supreme Court hold that Congress could not require local police officers to conduct background checks on all gun purchases because doing so would violate the Tenth Amendment?

In which case did the Supreme Court hold that Congress could not require local police officers to conduct background checks on all gun purchases because doing so would violate the Tenth Amendment?

• A. Morrison
• B. Printz v. United States
• C. McCulloch v. Maryland
• D. United States v. Lopez

Answer: (B)

The main idea tested here is federalism—the Constitution’s division of power between national and state governments—and the limits on how the federal government can bind state officials to carry out federal programs. In Printz v United States, the Court held that Congress cannot require local police to perform background checks on every gun purchase because that would be forcing state officers to administer a federal program. This is the anti-commandeering principle: the federal government may not commandeer state governments or their officers to enforce federal laws. The background-check provision of the Brady Act looked like a federal mandate, but by making local law enforcement administer it, Congress crossed that line and intruded on state sovereignty protected by the Tenth Amendment. This case is specifically about the tension between federal gun-control policies and state policing powers, and it establishes that distinction where the other listed cases involve different constitutional limits (commerce power or federal supremacy) rather than forcing states to execute federal programs.

The main idea tested here is federalism—the Constitution’s division of power between national and state governments—and the limits on how the federal government can bind state officials to carry out federal programs. In Printz v United States, the Court held that Congress cannot require local police to perform background checks on every gun purchase because that would be forcing state officers to administer a federal program. This is the anti-commandeering principle: the federal government may not commandeer state governments or their officers to enforce federal laws. The background-check provision of the Brady Act looked like a federal mandate, but by making local law enforcement administer it, Congress crossed that line and intruded on state sovereignty protected by the Tenth Amendment. This case is specifically about the tension between federal gun-control policies and state policing powers, and it establishes that distinction where the other listed cases involve different constitutional limits (commerce power or federal supremacy) rather than forcing states to execute federal programs.