Federal Power: Enforcing Laws On States

The relationship between federal and state law in the United States is complex. While federal law generally supersedes state law in cases of conflict, the federal government's ability to enforce its laws on the states is limited. This area of law is known as the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, which includes the doctrine of preemption. Federal law is enforced through a combination of public and private efforts, with most federal civil statutes vesting enforcement authority in a federal agency. States can also enforce federal law, typically through their attorneys general, and can even enforce federal law without state regulation. However, the federal government cannot require states to enforce federal law, as seen in cases such as New York v. U.S. and Printz v. U.S., where the Supreme Court held that federal laws requiring states to regulate violated state sovereignty.

Federal law enforcement through public and private efforts

Federal law is enforced through a combination of public and private efforts. Most federal civil statutes give enforcement authority to a federal agency, while some also allow private parties to sue to enforce federal law. This is known as private enforcement, and it is a necessary supplement to public enforcement. Private lawsuits can hold corporate actors accountable and prevent misconduct from escaping regulation. For example, in the WorldCom case, private lawsuits brought by pension funds exposed accounting fraud within the company.

The traditional view is that law enforcement agencies are governmental, and their officers are agents of that government. However, a large force of private police officers exists in the United States and plays a significant role in law enforcement. As of 2014, over 1.05 million people in the US were employed as private law enforcement, outnumbering public law enforcement officers in the top 300 most densely populated counties. Private law enforcement can take many forms, from traditional security guards to officers performing full law enforcement duties in specific areas. North Carolina, for instance, employs 51 private police agencies with a total of 306 officers.

Small towns with limited budgets may struggle to staff their departments adequately, leading to gaps in service. A hybrid model blending public and private law enforcement can help provide adequate coverage at a lower cost. This model could involve outsourcing support elements, such as dispatchers, evidence custodians, and lab technicians, to private agencies. Regular joint meetings, integrated training programs, and clear communication channels can help foster a cohesive and effective partnership between public and private law enforcement.

While the federal government cannot compel states to enact laws or regulate in a specific field, it can incentivize states to comply with federal laws by conditioning the receipt of federal funding. For example, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the monetary and access incentive provisions of a federal law in New York v. U.S., even though it found that the law's requirement for the state to regulate radioactive waste disposal was outside Congress' enumerated powers. Additionally, the Court has refrained from deciding whether ministerial reporting requirements imposed by Congress on state and local governments are constitutional.

State enforcement of federal law

Federal law is enforced through a combination of public and private efforts. While federal civil statutes typically vest enforcement authority in a federal agency, some also create private rights of action that allow private parties to sue to enforce federal law.

There are two distinct types of public enforcement. Many federal statutes authorize civil enforcement by both a federal agency and the states, usually through their attorneys general. State enforcement is largely decentralized, and states act on behalf of interests that differ significantly from those of federal enforcers. This means that state enforcement of federal law acts as a unique model of enforcement and a unique form of state power.

The link between enforcement authority and regulatory authority is broken by state enforcement of federal law, as it authorizes state actors to enforce the laws of a different sovereign. This means that state enforcement authority can thrive even in areas where state law is preempted or state regulators have chosen not to act. For example, in New York v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that a federal law that required states to accept ownership of radioactive waste or regulate its disposal according to Congress' instructions was outside of Congress' powers. However, the Court upheld the law's monetary and access incentive provisions.

In some cases, states may voluntarily choose to participate in the enforcement of federal laws. For instance, Justice O'Connor noted that nothing prevents states from voluntarily participating in the enforcement of federal laws such as the Brady Act, which requires background checks as part of a federal program for purchasing handguns.

Federal law and state sovereignty

The United States Constitution and relevant case law define the lines of authority between states and the federal government. The Constitution provides that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the various states. This power has been interpreted broadly, creating a large potential overlap with state authority.

The federal government is largely elected by and imposes obligations directly on individual citizens. State officials must swear an oath of loyalty to the federal Constitution, which declares federal law as "the supreme law of the land" above state constitutions. State militias are trained by federal rules and can be placed under federal command. The federal government also has direct control over all regular armed forces and a unified realm of law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

However, the states retain considerable autonomy, with their own revenues, constitutions, and a wide range of functions within which their legislation is supreme. State enforcement of federal law is a unique model of enforcement and a unique form of state power. While the general understanding is that a government creates laws and then enforces them, enforcement authority can serve as a means for states to exert influence and press their own interpretations of federal law.

The Supreme Court has decided several cases that reevaluate the historical relationship between state and federal power. For example, in Printz v. U.S. (1997), the Supreme Court held that a federal law requiring state officials to conduct background checks as part of a federal program violated constitutional principles of state sovereignty. In New York v. U.S. (1992), the Court held that a federal law requiring states to regulate the disposal of radioactive waste according to Congress' instructions was outside Congress' enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.

Additionally, the Court has expanded the concept of state sovereign immunity to prohibit citizens from bringing suits against states under federal law, with some exceptions. Congress also has a limited ability to abrogate such state immunity and can require states to undertake certain activities as a condition of receiving federal funds.

Federal law and state regulatory activity

Federal laws are enforced through a combination of public and private efforts. Most federal civil statutes vest enforcement authority in a federal agency, and some also allow private parties to sue to enforce federal law. Many federal statutes also authorize civil enforcement by state actors, such as state attorneys general.

State enforcement of federal law is a unique model of enforcement and a unique form of state power. While enforcement authority usually goes hand in hand with regulatory authority, state enforcement of federal law breaks that link by authorizing state actors to enforce the laws of a different sovereign. State enforcement authority can thus thrive even in areas where state law is preempted or state regulators have chosen not to act.

State enforcement of federal law is not without limits, however. In Printz v. U.S. (1997), the Supreme Court held that a federal law requiring state officials to receive firearms dealers' reports and conduct background checks as part of a federal program violated constitutional principles of state sovereignty. Similarly, in New York v. U.S. (1992), the Supreme Court held that a federal law requiring states to accept ownership of radioactive waste or regulate its disposal according to Congress' instructions was outside Congress' enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.

The area of law addressing conflicts between state and federal laws is generally referred to as the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Within the Supremacy Clause is the doctrine of "preemption," which states that federal law supersedes state law in many (but not all) cases of conflict. The federal government has taken the position that state regulatory activity does not violate the Supremacy Clause, likely because states do not prevent federal authorities from enforcing their own laws. An example of this is the legalization of marijuana by some states, which remains illegal under federal law. While the federal government cannot require states to keep marijuana illegal, it can still enforce its own laws against individuals or businesses.

Federal law and attorney conduct

Federal laws are enforced through a combination of public and private efforts. Most federal civil statutes vest enforcement authority in a federal agency, and some also allow private parties to sue to enforce federal law. State enforcement of federal law is unique in that it allows states to exert influence by adjusting the intensity of enforcement and interpreting federal law. Notably, state enforcement authority does not rely on regulatory authority, meaning states can enforce the laws of a different sovereign even if they have not enacted corresponding regulations.

In terms of attorney conduct, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct outline various ethical guidelines that lawyers must follow. For instance, Rule 3.1 states that lawyers should only bring or defend proceedings if there is a valid legal and factual basis for doing so. Rule 8.4 prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonest or fraudulent conduct, including in their business dealings. Additionally, Rule 1.4 emphasizes the importance of maintaining client confidentiality, except in cases where disclosure is required or permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other laws.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 also prohibits attorneys from engaging in certain unethical conduct, such as coaching clients to lie or conceal information to circumvent immigration policies. Disciplinary action can be taken against attorneys who violate these rules, and the Attorney General plays a crucial role in assessing and recommending sanctions or other disciplinary measures.

Furthermore, lawyers have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and promote public confidence in the justice system. They should strive to ensure equal access to justice for all, regardless of economic or social barriers, and actively work to address deficiencies in the administration of justice.

Frequently asked questions