Who Enforces The Law? States' Powers Examined

The question of whether states can enforce federal law is a complex one, with a unique model of enforcement and a unique form of state power. While federal law is typically enforced through public and private efforts, with authority vested in a federal agency, states can also play a role in enforcing these laws, particularly through their attorneys general. The Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue, upholding the idea of dual sovereignty between federal and state governments and emphasizing that federal law takes precedence over state law. In practice, this means that state courts may hear cases over which federal courts have jurisdiction unless the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court has also upheld state courts' refusal to hear federal claims in certain instances, finding that state law provided a valid excuse for declining jurisdiction.

State court enforcement of federal law

The ability of state courts to enforce federal law is based on the principle that federal laws are binding on the states and their citizens, and the US is not a foreign sovereignty regarding the states. In other words, federal laws are just as applicable and enforceable in the states as state laws. This principle was established in the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, where the Supreme Court held that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts and can hear cases over which federal courts have jurisdiction unless the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

However, this does not mean that state courts are always required to hear federal claims. State courts may decline to hear federal cases if state law provides a valid excuse or through a "neutral rule of judicial administration" that does not improperly burden federal claims. For example, in the 1929 case of Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R., the Court upheld New York's refusal to adjudicate an FELA claim that fell outside the scope of claims typically entertained under state law.

The enforcement of federal law by state courts is a unique form of state power, as it allows states to influence the interpretation and enforcement of federal laws. This authority enables states to adjust the intensity of enforcement and press their interpretations, even when state law is preempted or state regulators have chosen not to act.

State sovereignty and refusal to enforce federal regulations

The United States Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty, with the federal government and state governments exercising concurrent power. While the federal government possesses supreme authority in certain areas, the states retain significant autonomy and are not merely administrative arms of the federal government. This principle of state sovereignty is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment and the enumerated Powers Clause, which restrict the federal government's ability to infringe on state powers.

In the context of law enforcement, the Supreme Court has affirmed that states cannot be compelled to use their legislative or law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. This principle was established in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania in 1842 and reaffirmed in subsequent cases, including Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992). The Court has held that the federal government may not enact regulatory programs that "commandeer" a state's legislative and administrative mechanisms, upholding state sovereignty and autonomy.

However, it is important to distinguish between a state's refusal to enforce a federal law and "nullification." While states may withhold their enforcement assistance, they cannot declare a federal law unconstitutional or forbid its enforcement by the federal government within their borders. Nullification occurs when a state attempts to invalidate or nullify a federal law, as seen in the case of Georgia's laws regulating Cherokee land, which the Supreme Court deemed "void" as they conflicted with federal treaties.

While states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law, they can choose to voluntarily cooperate in enforcing federal regulations. This cooperation can take various forms, including through their attorneys general or by receiving federal funding to participate in enforcement efforts. Additionally, federal statutes often authorize civil enforcement by both federal agencies and the states, allowing for decentralized enforcement that aligns with the interests of both sovereign entities.

State power and state regulation

State enforcement of federal law is a unique form of state power. Enforcement authority can serve as a potent means of state influence, allowing states to adjust the intensity of enforcement and to press their own interpretations of federal law. This means that state enforcement authority can thrive even in areas where state law is preempted or state regulators have chosen not to act.

The US Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty, where the federal government and the states have separate powers. The Tenth Amendment and the enumerated Powers Clause establish that Congress cannot order state executives to administer a state regulatory program. This was demonstrated in the case of Printz v. US, where the Supreme Court held that a federal law violated constitutional principles of state sovereignty by requiring state officials to conduct background checks as part of a federal program.

However, this does not mean that states are completely free to refuse to enforce federal law. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law is paramount to state law, and state courts are required to enforce "penal" laws of the United States. In the case of Testa v. Katt, the Court held that state courts are required to enforce federal penal laws, such as those that allow a buyer of goods above the prescribed ceiling price to sue the seller.

Ultimately, the question of state court enforcement of federal law is related to the anti-commandeering doctrine, which establishes that Congress cannot require state executives to perform federal law enforcement functions.

Public and private enforcement

Federal law in the United States is enforced through a combination of public and private efforts. While virtually all federal civil statutes 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 authorise civil enforcement by both a federal agency and the states, typically through their attorneys general. State enforcement is largely decentralised, and states act on behalf of a set of interests that differ significantly from those represented by federal enforcers. This means that state enforcement authority can thrive even in areas where state law is preempted or state regulators have chosen not to act.

The question of state court enforcement of federal law is related to, but distinct from, the anti-commandeering doctrine. The judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may establish. Unless the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a matter, state courts may hear cases over which federal courts would also have jurisdiction. In several cases, the Supreme Court has upheld state courts' refusal to hear federal claims, finding that state law provided a valid excuse to decline jurisdiction.

The anti-commandeering doctrine holds that the federal government cannot compel the states to enforce federal laws or to implement federal programmes. For example, in Printz v. US (1997), the Supreme Court held that a federal law violated constitutional principles of state sovereignty by requiring state officials to receive firearms dealers' reports and conduct background checks as part of a federal program. The Court has also observed that it had never sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the states to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations.

Congress may attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds, and it has repeatedly used this power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning the receipt of federal moneys upon the recipient's compliance with federal statutory and administrative directives.

State influence and interpretation of federal law

The enforcement authority of states can be seen as a form of state power that goes beyond state regulation. This is because states can enforce federal laws even when they have not created or chosen to act on those laws themselves. In other words, state enforcement authority can exist independently of state regulatory authority. This dynamic allows states to exert influence and interpret federal laws in ways that align with their own interests.

An example of this dynamic can be seen in the case of Printz v. U.S. (1997), where the Supreme Court held that a federal law (the Brady Act) violated constitutional principles of state sovereignty. The Brady Act required state officials to receive reports from firearms dealers and conduct background checks, which the Court deemed to be an overreach of federal power, infringing on the sovereignty of the states. This case illustrates how states can push back against federal laws that they deem to be at odds with their local policies or sovereignty.

In another case, New York successfully refused to entertain a federal cause of action, citing a valid excuse related to its local policy. The Court held that while equality of treatment between state and federal claims is important, it does not guarantee that a state law will be deemed a valid excuse for refusing to enforce a federal law. This case demonstrates the complexity of state influence and interpretation of federal law, where states can assert their interests while still being held accountable to federal policies.

Overall, state influence and interpretation of federal law is a nuanced aspect of the US legal system. While states have some authority to enforce federal laws and can exert influence through their interpretation and enforcement, there are also checks and balances in place to ensure that federal policies are upheld and state sovereignty is respected. The interplay between state and federal powers in this context is a unique feature of the US legal landscape.

Frequently asked questions