Also known as: power not delegated · reserved powers · Tenth Amendment · non-delegated powers
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A constitutional reservation of authority to the states and the people over matters not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The reservation prevents Congress from compelling states to administer or enforce federal programs.
A constitutional reservation of authority to the states and the people over matters not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The reservation prevents Congress from treating states unequally without extraordinary justification based on current data.
A constitutional reservation of authority to the states and the people over matters not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The reservation prevents Congress from compelling states to administer or enforce federal programs.
State A sheriff Paul Peterson receives a federal directive ordering his deputies to perform background checks on handgun buyers under a new national program. Peterson refuses, citing lack of state funding and personnel. The federal government sues to compel compliance. The court holds that the directive commandeers state officers in violation of the reservation of powers not delegated to the federal government.
A constitutional reservation of authority to the states and the people over matters not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The reservation prevents Congress from treating states unequally without extraordinary justification based on current data.
Congress requires only states flagged in the 1970s for discriminatory hospital siting to obtain federal approval before altering polling locations in medical facilities. State A, still covered by the old formula, challenges the disparate treatment. Other states face no such obligation. The court invalidates the regime because reliance on decades-old data violates equal sovereignty principles reserved to the states under powers not delegated.
1 common questions
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Congress enacts a statute directing every state port authority to staff round-the-clock federal container screenings using state personnel and budgets. State A Port Authority Director Pilar Pena notifies federal officer Marcus Hale that the state will not comply. Highland Coastal vessels are detained for lack of state certifications. The court finds the requirement exceeds powers delegated to the federal government and reserves authority to the states.
State A officials receive a federal order to enforce a new national regulatory scheme using state resources. Governor Lee cites lack of delegated authority and declines. Federal authorities seek mandamus. The court denies relief, holding that the order exceeds powers delegated to the federal government and reserves authority to the states.
Estelle Griswold served as Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Dr. C. Lee Buxton served as the League's Medical Director and was a professor at Yale Medical School. Together they opened and operated a center in New Haven that was open from November 1 to November 10, 1961. At the center they gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. They examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. Fees were usually charged, although some couples were serviced free. The statutes involved were sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.). Section 53-32 made it a crime to use any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. Section 54-196 punished accessories as principals. The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut affirmed that judgment in State v. Griswold, 151 Conn. 544, 200 A. 2d 479. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. The appellants asserted standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. A criminal conviction for serving married couples removes doubts about case or controversy. The rights of husband and wife would be diluted unless considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them.
View caseState A enacts rules on local land use that differ from a suggested federal approach. A developer challenges the state rules as preempted. The court upholds state authority, concluding that the power to regulate the matter was not delegated to the federal government and remains reserved to the states and the people.
The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for one-year periods. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. Respondent Dick Heller is a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home. The District Court dismissed respondent's complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseState A retains its own standards for admitting evidence in state courts despite a conflicting federal proposal. A litigant claims federal preemption. The court rejects the claim, holding that the power to set such standards was not delegated to the federal government and is reserved to the states and the people.
Petitioner Dickerson was indicted for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and using a firearm in the course of committing a crime of violence. Before trial, Dickerson moved to suppress a statement he had made at a Federal Bureau of Investigation field office on the grounds that he had not received Miranda warnings before being interrogated. The District Court granted his motion to suppress, and the Government took an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That court reversed the District Court's suppression order. It agreed that petitioner had not received Miranda warnings before making his statement but held that 18 U.S.C. § 3501 governed the admissibility of the statement. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Miranda was not a constitutional holding and that Congress could therefore have the final say on admissibility. Two years after Miranda was decided, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which provides that a confession shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given and directs the trial judge to consider specified factors in determining voluntariness. Because of the importance of the questions raised by the Court of Appeals' decision, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View case2 common questions
The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states. This reservation prevents Congress from compelling states to administer federal programs or from treating states unequally without current justification.
Yes. The doctrine prohibits Congress from issuing directives that require states to address particular problems or command state officers to administer federal programs. Such compulsion exceeds powers delegated to the federal government and invades authority reserved to the states.
Congress may subject some states but not others to special requirements only when it supplies extraordinary justification based on current data. Reliance on decades-old coverage formulas violates equal sovereignty principles that flow from powers not delegated to the federal government.
…not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal…