PRINTZ/MACK v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
95-1478 Printz and 95-1503 Mack
Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
United States under the Clinton Administration
Stephen Halbrook for Printz
David T. Hardy for Mack
United States Supreme Court
Sheriffs Printz and Mack
The case of Printz v. United States (521 U.S. 898, 1997) was a significant Supreme Court decision that addressed the issue of state sovereignty and the limits of federal power. The case involved a challenge to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers.
Background
The Brady Act was enacted in 1993 to regulate the sale of firearms. The law required licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks on prospective buyers through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The law also required local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on prospective buyers who purchased firearms from unlicensed dealers.
The Case
The case was brought by two local law enforcement officials, Jay Printz and Richard Mack, who challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s provision requiring them to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers. The officials argued that the provision violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.
Judges Comments
Majority: Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
Dissent: Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Justice Sevens' Dissenting Opinion: If Congress believes that such a statute will benefit the people of the Nation, and serve the interests of cooperative federalism better than an enlarged federal bureaucracy, we should respect both its policy judgment and its appraisal of its constitutional power. (Note: Justice Scalia refers to this as "empty formalistic reasoning of the highest order." - Richard Mack)