Facts: A provision of the Brady Act required chief law
enforcement officers of state and local governments to perform handgun buyer
background checks on an interim basis until the national background check
system was developed. Two sheriffs sue
to stop the provision from being enforced in separate district courts. The two district courts both found that the
provision in question was unconstitutional but could be severed from the rest
of the Act. The Ninth Circuit reversed,
saying that none of the Act’s provisions were unconstitutional. The sheriffs appealed.
Issue: Are the interim provision of the Brady Act
unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment or other grounds?
Rule: Congress cannot constitutionally compel state executive
branch officials to administer a federal regulatory program.
Analysis: Scalia says that the Court’s past decisions show that
though Congress can command state judges, it cannot command the states’
executive authorities. Scalia based his
decision at least in part on
O’Connor brings up the Tenth
Amendment explicitly. O’Connor points
out that it is possible to for localities to voluntarily continue participating
in the interim background check plan if they choose to do so.
Stevens distinguishes New York. He asks what the practical effects might be
in an emergency if Congress could not conscript local officials into
service. Stevens also looks at
legislative history.
Stevens takes a different
view of the Tenth Amendment. Stevens
says that the federal government can impose duties on ordinary citizens, so, he
reasons, why can’t say impose even greater duties on state officers? Stevens reaffirms the view that both the
Constitution and federal statutes are
the Supreme Law of the Land.
Breyer takes a comparative
approach, saying that the way we do things isn’t the only possible way for
things to work.
Conclusion: The Ninth Circuit is reversed and the provision in
question is found unconstitutional.