Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

8 

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION 
CTY. v. TALEVSKI 
THOMAS, J., dissenting 

regulate  the  States  or  require  them  to  implement  federal 
programs.

“When  the  original  States  declared  their  independence,
they claimed the powers inherent in sovereignty.”  Murphy 
v.  National  Collegiate  Athletic  Assn.,  584  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2018) (slip op., at 14) (citing Declaration of Independence
¶32).4  Later, in ratifying the Constitution, the people of the 
original  States  granted  carefully  enumerated  legislative 
powers to the new Federal Congress, while preserving the
States’ pre-existing legislative power.  584 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op.,  at  15).  “[C]onspicuously  absent  from”  Congress’  enu-
merated powers was “the power to issue direct orders to the
governments of the States.”  Ibid. 

Thus,  as  this  Court  has  made  clear,  the  Constitution 
“confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, 
not States.”  New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 166 
(1992).5  As a corollary, Congress “may not conscript state 
governments as its agents,” nor can it “require the States to
govern  according  to  [its]  instructions.”    Id.,  at  162,  178. 
And, “[w]hatever the outer limits of [state] sovereignty may
be,  one  thing  is  clear:  The  Federal  Government  may  not 

—————— 

4 The Articles of Confederation granted Congress only the power to act 
upon States; it had no power to directly regulate individuals.  The Con-
stitution flipped this arrangement by granting the Federal Government
the power to regulate individuals directly, but not States.  See New York 
v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 162 (1992)  (“ ‘The people, through [the
Constitution],  established  a  more  perfect  union  by  substituting  a  na-
tional government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens,
instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly
restricted,  only  upon  the  States’ ”  (quoting  Lane  County  v.  Oregon,  7 
Wall. 71, 76 (1869); emphasis deleted)). 

5 Congress possesses limited powers to directly regulate the States un-
der the Reconstruction Amendments.  See, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 
521 U. S. 507, 518 (1997).  Due to the federalism concerns inherent in 
such  regulation,  these  enforcement  powers  are  cabined  by  the  congru-
ence-and-proportionality test.  Id., at 518–519.  The careful tailoring of 
this exception vividly proves the rule.