1. Citation: Printz v. United States 521 U.S.

898 (1997)
2. Parties: Jay Printz and Richard Mack () were the CLEOs for Ravalli County, Mon
tana, and Graham County, Arizona, resectively. The United States () is reresent
ed by the Solicitor General.
3. Procedural History: Petitioners filed searate actions against the United Sta
tes, challenging the constitutionality of certain rovisions from the Brady Act.
The resective District Courts held the rovisions unconstitutional, but conclu
ded that they were severable from the rest of the Act and a voluntary background
check could remain in lace. A divided anel of the Court of Aeals for the Ni
nth Circuit reversed, finding none of the rovisions unconstitutional. The two a
ctions were granted certiorari by the Sureme Court and consolidated.
4. Facts: The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) established a detailed federal schem
e governing the distribution of firearms. In 1993, Congress amended the GCA with
the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (BA) to require the Attorney General
to create a national instant background check system by November 1998. The BA al
so established immediate interim rovisions while the system became oerative. T
hese rovisions required local chief law enforcement officers (CLEO) to erform ba
ckground checks on otential handgun buyers before the transaction is comleted.
5. Issue: Does Congress have the ower to direct state law enforcement officers
to articiate, even temorarily, in the administration of a federally enacted r
egulatory scheme?
6. Holding/Rule: No. New York v. United States (1992) held that the federal gove
rnment may not comel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory rog
ram.
7. Reasoning:
The interim rovisions threatened state sovereignty because:
1) The large amount of early statutes only imosed obligation on state judges to
enforce federal rescritions. The absolute lack of statutes imosing obligatio
ns on the States executive suggests that the first Congresses intended an absence
of this ower.
2) The Federalist No. 15 states that the eole are the only roer objects of go
vernment, not the States.
They would also interfere with the searation of owers:
3) The Constitution rovides that only the President (Article II, 3) and his a
ointed officials (Article II, 2) may administer the laws enacted by Congress. Th
e BA would effectively transfer this resonsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the
50 States instead.
They are also an inaroriate use of the Necessary and Proer clause/Commerce c
lause:
4) The Necessary and Proer Clause does not rotect the BA because when a law vi
olates the rincile of state sovereignty under the guise of the Commerce Clause
, it is not a law but a usuration.
5) The BA interim rovisions are not distinguishable from New York v. United Sta
tes
8. Judgement: The judgement of the Court of Aeals for the Ninth Circuit is rev
ersed.