Tenth Amendment - Powers Reserved to the States
Original Text
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In Plain Language
Powers not given to the federal government belong to the states or the people. The federal government has only the powers the Constitution grants—everything else stays with states or citizens.
But the Tenth Amendment doesn't override valid exercises of enumerated federal power. If Congress has authority under Article I to regulate something, the Tenth Amendment doesn't strip that authority away. The amendment confirms that federal power has limits—it doesn't create new limits beyond those already built into the enumerated powers structure.
Two doctrines flow from Tenth Amendment principles. The anti-commandeering rule bars Congress from forcing state governments or state officials to administer federal programs. The conditional spending doctrine lets Congress offer grants to states with strings attached—but those conditions can't be so coercive that states have "no real choice" but to accept.
Historical Significance
Powers not given to the federal government belong to states or the people. This reassured states that ratifying the Constitution wouldn't give Congress unlimited authority. The Supreme Court used this principle in Printz v. United States (1997) to strike down federal commandeering of state officers.
Check your understanding
Key Concepts0/6
Historical Context
The Tenth Amendment reassured Anti-Federalists that the new federal government wouldn't swallow state sovereignty. The states ratified it on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
The amendment's meaning has shifted dramatically over American history. For nearly 150 years, it was read to impose substantive limits on federal regulatory power—the Court struck down child labor laws and minimum wage requirements in the early twentieth century partly on Tenth Amendment grounds. After 1937, the Court abandoned that approach, treating the amendment as a truism that added nothing beyond the enumerated powers structure. Justice Stone wrote in United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered."
The modern anti-commandeering doctrine, developed in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), revived Tenth Amendment limits without returning to the older approach of voiding federal regulatory programs. Congress can regulate private conduct under its enumerated powers; it can't draft state governments as its administrative agents.
How This Shows Up Today
The Supreme Court has used anti-commandeering doctrine to strike down several federal mandates on states. In Printz v. United States (1997), the Court ruled Congress couldn't force county sheriffs to conduct federal gun background checks. In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), seven justices found the ACA's Medicaid expansion unconstitutionally coercive because states couldn't practically refuse the offer without losing all existing Medicaid funding. Murphy v. NCAA (2018) struck down a federal law banning states from authorizing sports betting. States now invoke anti-commandeering in conflicts over marijuana enforcement, immigration, and environmental regulation—arguing Congress can set federal rules but can't conscript state agencies to carry them out.
Printz v. United States (1997) - cannot commandeer state officers
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) - Medicaid expansion limits
Murphy v. NCAA (2018) - sports betting commandeering
Discussion Questions4
Loading questions...
Preparing comprehension questions for this section