State Autonomy Limits on Federal Power
A. State autonomy (sometimes referred to as state sovereignty) limits
on
federal power are inherent in the structure of the Constitution as well
as confirmed by the text of the Tenth Amendment.
B. State autonomy limits on federal power prevent the federal
government from interfering with decisions made by the state as to how
to structure its basic governmental operations such as where to locate
its capitol, how many members to elect to the state legislature, the
length of the governor's term in office, and similar aspects of its
governmental structure.
C. In recent years, the Supreme Court's state autonomy focus has
shifted to protecting the states from being forced to adopt or
administer federal regulatory programs. For example, in Printz v.
United States, the Court struck down a provision of the
Brady
Act which commandeered, without the state’s permission, the services of
state law enforcement officers to assist in the administration of a
federal regulatory scheme. While the federal government is free
to regulate areas falling with the scope of its Article I, Section 8
powers, including to apply those federal laws to the state’s own
activities, or to provide incentives to encourage the states to
cooperate, it can't force the states to participate in the
administration of those laws. Federal programs that require the
states to enact legislation, such as in New York v. United States, or
require the states to administer and enforce federal
regulatory programs, as in Printz,
can be successfully challenged under the state autonomy principle
confirmed by the Tenth Amendment.
D. In Reno v. Condon,
the Court upheld provisions
of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act which prevented state motor
vehicle departments from making available personal information about
drivers without their consent. In upholding the provisions, the
Court distinguished between federal laws that regulate the state’s own
activities (as in Reno v. Condon
in which the state was regulated as
the owner of a database) and federal laws that require the states to
regulate the behavior of their own citizens (as in Printz
and New York v. United
States). The Court focused on the fact that the federal
law in Reno v. Condon did
not require the states to legislate or to enforce a federal regulatory
scheme.
E. Beyond the limited examples of federal laws that force the states to
either enact legislation or administer a federal regulatory program,
the Tenth Amendment has not been a significant source of limits on the
power of Congress. When asserted in an effort to prevent the
federal government from regulating in areas that have traditionally
been regulated by the states, the Court has rejected this argument and
described the Tenth Amendment as a tautology, only stating that
whatever power has not been granted to the federal government remains
with the states rather than defining the scope of the non-granted
power.
F. Further, after
abandoning the National
League of Cities
approach in Garcia v. San Antonio
Metropolital Transit Authority,
Tenth Amendment state autonomy arguments have also been
rejected when states have argued that the states' own activities cannot
be regulated along with their private conterparts. Therefore,
Congress is free to regulate the state as an employer, an energy user,
a trash disposer, etc. along with private entities that engage in these
same activities. The Tenth Amendment does not require, as
interpreted in Garcia, that
the state be exempt from such federal regulations.
As long as federal regulatory power exists, such as the grant of power
in the Commerce Clause, Congress is free to regulate private activity
as well as its state governmental conterpart.
G. Even though the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the
Tenth Amendment places limits on the areas where the federal government
can regulate and requires the federal government to refrain from
regulating in areas that have traditionally been regulated by the
states, it is easy to see the influence of this argument in the Court's
decisions in Lopez and Morrison.