Also known as: anti-commandeering principle · anticommandeering doctrine · anti-commandeering doctrine · anti-commandeering
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional principle that bars the federal government from issuing directives requiring states to address particular problems or commanding state officers or their political subdivisions to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.
Antonio Alvarado, a state police chief, received a federal directive requiring his officers to perform background checks on handgun purchasers and upload results to a federal database. When state resources proved insufficient, Alvarado refused compliance. The federal government sought to enforce the order against the state officers.
Ariana Azizi, director of a state gaming commission, approved licenses for sports betting at resort hotels after the legislature authorized the activity. A federal statute then prohibited any state from authorizing or licensing such schemes. Azizi halted further licensing and faced federal enforcement threats.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Yes. The principle applies to congressional directives that target state legislative action by dictating what states may or may not authorize or enact.
Yes. A federal statute that directly regulates private actors and only incidentally affects state policy choices does not violate the principle.
Yes. The defect lies in the method of enforcement through state officers rather than in the absence of federal regulatory authority over the topic.
It depends on whether the conditions are coercive. Non-coercive conditions that leave states a genuine choice do not commandeer state officials.
…affirmed. We granted certiorari to decide whether PASPA’s prohibition on state authorization of sports gambling violates the anticommandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment. I Before considering the constitutionality of the PASPA provision at issue, we first address the Leagues’ argument that petitioners lack standing to challenge…