Also known as: Brady Acts · Brady Bill · Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A federal statute establishing a national instant background-check system for prospective handgun purchasers. The statute's interim provisions directing state and local law enforcement officers to perform those checks were invalidated under the Tenth Amendment.
Brittany Bell, a county sheriff, receives a federal directive requiring her office to run background checks on every handgun buyer using state resources and personnel until a national database becomes operational. When a dealer challenges the mandate after Bell refuses to comply without federal funding, the court holds that the directive commandeers state officers to administer a federal program.
Brian Bailey, the director of a state motor vehicle agency, objects to a federal statute that restricts how his office may sell or disclose drivers' personal data to third parties. The court upholds the statute because it regulates the state's own conduct as a data holder rather than ordering state officers to enforce a federal regulatory scheme against private parties.
In 1994 Congress enacted the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which regulates the disclosure of personal information contained in the records of state motor vehicle departments. State DMVs require drivers and automobile owners to provide personal information that may include a person’s name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security number, medical information, and photograph as a condition of obtaining a driver’s license or registering an automobile. Many states sell this personal information to individuals and businesses, generating significant revenues such as the approximately $8 million received each year by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. The DPPA generally prohibits any state DMV or its officers, employees, or contractors from knowingly disclosing or making available personal information obtained in connection with a motor vehicle record without the driver’s consent. The prohibition is subject to numerous statutory exceptions for uses such as motor vehicle safety, theft prevention, emissions compliance, and court proceedings. The Act also regulates the resale and redisclosure of drivers’ personal information by private persons who have obtained that information from a state DMV. Such persons must maintain records identifying to whom the records were disclosed and the permitted purpose for five years. Any person who knowingly violates the DPPA may be subject to a criminal fine. A state agency maintaining a policy or practice of substantial noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per day imposed by the United States Attorney General. South Carolina law conflicts with the DPPA. Under that law, the information contained in the state’s DMV records is available to any person or entity that fills out a form listing the requester’s name and address. The form must state that the information will not be used for telephone solicitation. State law authorizes the DMV to charge a fee for releasing motor vehicle information and requires the DMV to allow drivers to prohibit use of their information for commercial activities such as telephone solicitation. Following the DPPA’s enactment, South Carolina and its Attorney General, respondent Condon, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina alleging that the DPPA violates the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. The district court concluded that the Act is incompatible with principles of federalism, granted summary judgment for the state, and permanently enjoined the Act’s enforcement against the state and its officers. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1999.
View caseThe Court struck down the interim requirement that state and local chief law enforcement officers conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers. That mandate was held to violate the anti-commandeering principle derived from the Tenth Amendment.
Supporting sources
No. After the Supreme Court decision, the interim state-officer provisions were invalidated. The permanent national instant background-check system is now administered by federal authorities without commandeering state personnel.
The statute's interim provisions directly ordered state officers to execute a federal regulatory program by conducting background checks. The Court used those provisions to establish that Congress may not conscript state executive officials to administer federal law.
Supporting sources