10th Amendment

Anticommandeering Cases (Sovereignty)

Pub. Serv. Commn v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986): “Where, as here, the Executive Branch claims authority not granted to it in the Constitution, it ‘literally has no power to act … unless and until Congress confers power upon it.’” (City of Philadelphia v. A.G. [2019] 6)

New York v. United States [505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d120 (1992)]:   (Summary here.)

U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 n.3 (1995): “States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law” (internal quotes omitted).

Printz v. U.S. [521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)]: (Summary here.)

Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. 387, 398 (2012): “both the National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to respect.”

Galarza v. Szalczyk [745 F.3d 634 (3d.  Cir. 2014)]: U.S. citizen appealed imprisonment by County that thought it was under mandatory detainer from ICE.

Murphy v. NCAA [584 U.S. ___ (2018)]: PASPA is unconstitutional because it “unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do” (1478). (Summary here.)

City of Philadelphia, No. 18-2648 (3d Cir. 2019): Didn’t get to the Constitutional issue of anticommandeering, but that was the root of the problem (A.G. trying to control local law enforcement by withholding grant money unless they complied with conditions re. immigration detention). (Summary here)