Citation network
Printz Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 03, 1996
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Printz v. UnitedSearch
-
Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana V. UnitedSearch
-
Together with No. 95-1503, Mack v. UnitedSearch
-
without the States' consent. They appear to rest on the natural assumption that the States would consent, see FERC v. MississippiSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
See, e. g., Gregory v. AshcroftSearch
-
a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's text. See, e. g., Lane County v. OregonSearch
-
delegated 900 Syllabus powers within the Necessary and Proper Clause's meaning. Cf. New York v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 714, 723-724 (1986) (quoting Marsh v. ChambersSearch
-
Myers v. UnitedSearch
-
Holmgren v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. JonesSearch
-
elsewhere created obligations in justice that courts of the forum State would enforce. See, e. g., McKenna v. FiskSearch
-
generally required such enforcement with respect to obligations arising in other States. See Hughes v. FetterSearch
-
identical with the line established by the Constitution for federal separation-of-powers purposes, see Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
Humphrey's Executor v. UnitedSearch
-
See California v. SuperiorSearch
-
assumption that the States would consent to allowing their officials to assist the Federal Government, see FERC v. MississippiSearch
-
first of all.) We have held, however, that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. New York v. UnitedSearch
-
all state actions constituting such obstruction, even legislative Acts, are ipso facto invalid.6 See Silkwood v. KerrMcGeeSearch
-
force is far outweighed by almost two centuries of apparent congressional avoidance of the practice. Compare INS v. ChadhaSearch
-
The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution's text, Lane County v. OregonSearch
-
Texas v. WhiteSearch
-
The Federalist No. 15, at 109. We have set forth the historical record in more detail elsewhere, see New York v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 549 , 576-577 (1995) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). Cf. Edgar v. MITESearch
-
resolution of a significant constitutional question to rest upon reasonable implications. See, e. g., Myers v. UnitedSearch
-
Plaut v. SpendthriftSearch
-
regulations on statutory grounds in order to avoid what they perceived to be grave constitutional issues, see Maryland v. EPASearch
-
Brown v. EPASearch
-
of Columbia Circuit invalidated the regulations on both constitutional and statutory grounds, see District of Columbia v. TrainSearch
-
of those that remained, leading us to vacate the opinions below and remand for consideration of mootness. EPA v. BrownSearch
-
may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. In Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264 (1981), and FERC v. MississippiSearch
-
did not require the States to enforce federal law. In 926 Hodel we cited the lower court cases in EPA v. BrownSearch
-
enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise. At issue in New York v. UnitedSearch
-
delegation of legislative authority for federal separation-of-powers purposes. See A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
indeed, some think we have abandoned the effort to do so. See FPC v. NewSearch
-
retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority. See Texas v. WhiteSearch
-
The Government purports to find support for its proffered distinction of New York in our decisions in Testa v. KattSearch
-
U. S. 386 (1947), and FERC v. MississippiSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial