Question

Read and analyze Prinz v United States (1997) indicating the overarching issue, how the case arose, the Supreme Court's decision, and the rationale for that decision. Explain why you agree or disagree with SCOTUS.

Answer 1

Dear Student,

Please find below answer to your questions

Abstract

Below are the summary of Prinz vs United State Case

1) This case aroused due to main reason Prinz made the argument - that the federal government could not mandate state and local governments to implement federal policy due to below reason-

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces the notion of a limited federal government and guarantees state sovereignty from such mandates.

2) In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the issue in Printz v. United States. The Court agreed with Printz and Mack, and invalidated the mandatory background check provisions. Writing for the 5–4 majority in the case.

Justice Antonin Scalia concluded, “The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

3) The decision in the Printz case reaffirmed the Court’s 1992 decision, New York v. United States, in which the Court invalidated provisions of a federal statute involving nuclear waste policy for infringing on state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

4) The Federalism Five argue that there are fixed boundaries between federal powers on the one hand, and state and local powers on the other, and that the Court must be willing to define and enforce those boundaries.

5) These and other cases have sparked considerable and often contentious debates among scholars and commentators over the Court’s proper role in defining the scope of federal powers.

6) In handing down this wave of federalism decisions and resurrecting doctrines long thought to have been buried in a judicial graveyard, the Rehnquist Court has been characterized by some as creating a “federalism revolution,” although others argue that the Court’s decisions in this area are far less than revolutionary.

7)  In Conclusion, the Court’s interpretations of the Tenth Amendment and other federalism provisions of the Constitution suggest that there are legal limits to federal power, and in so doing the Court appears to have bolstered state and local sovereignty

--------------

Hope my answer have cleared all your queries, I really appreciates your positive feedback !!

Thank You !!

--------------