# Printz v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 27, 1997 · 521 U.S. 898

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842144

## Case

- **Full name:** Printz, sheriff/coroner, Ravalli County, Montana v. United States
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 27, 1997
- **Citations:** 521 U.S. 898; 117 S. Ct. 2365; 138 L. Ed. 2d 914; 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4044
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Connor
- **Judges:** Scaua, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
- **Cited by:** 807 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842144

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "the central obligation imposed upon [chief law enforcement officers] by the interim provisions of the Brady Act-the obligation to 'make a reasonable effort to ascertain within 5 business days whether receipt or possession [of a handgun] would be in violation of t…
- holding unconstitutional the requirement in the Brady Bill that local law enforcement officers conduct background checks of prospective gun purchasers, because the federal government may not commandeer the apparati of state and local governments
- explaining that New York’s holding that Congress cannot compel the states to enforce a federal regulatory program extends to Congress’ inability to conscript state officers directly “to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program”
- holding that Congress could not commandeer state executive officers to enforce federal gun control law
- explaining that the "Oath or Affirmation! ] to support this Constitution” required of "state officers,” id. at 924, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (quoting U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 3), does not compel those officers to enforce federal statutes

## Opinion text

Justice O’Connor,
concurring.
Our precedent and our Nation’s historical practices support the Court’s holding today. The Brady Act violates the *936 Tenth Amendment to the extent it forces States and local law enforcement officers to perform background checks on prospective handgun owners and to accept Brady Forms from firearms dealers. See ante, at 922. Our holding, of course, does not spell the end of the objectives of the Brady Act. States and chief law enforcement officers may voluntarily continue to participate in the federal program. Moreover, the directives to the States are merely interim provisions scheduled to terminate November 30, 1998. Note following 18 U. S. C. § 922 . Congress is also free to amend the interim program to provide for its continuance on a contractual basis with the States if it wishes, as it does with a number of other federal programs. See, e. g., 23 U. S. C. § 402 (conditioning States’ receipt of federal funds for highway safety program on compliance with federal requirements).
In addition, the Court appropriately refrains from deciding whether other purely ministerial reporting requirements imposed by Congress on state and local authorities pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers are similarly invalid. See, e. g., 42 U. S. C. § 5779 (a) (requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to report cases of missing children to the Department of Justice). The provisions invalidated here, however, which directly compel state officials to administer a federal regulatory program, utterly fail to adhere to the design and structure of our constitutional scheme.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842144. Public record. Not legal advice.