Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

11 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

144,  156  (1992).  In  other  words,  the  Tenth  Amendment 
“states but a truism that all is retained which has not been 
surrendered,”  United  States  v.  Darby,  312  U. S.  100,  124 
(1941), “mak[ing] clear that powers reside at the state level 
except  where  the  Constitution  removes  them  from  that 
level,”  U. S.  Term  Limits,  supra,  at  848  (THOMAS,  J.,  dis-
senting);  see  also  Garcia  v.  San  Antonio  Metropolitan 
Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 549 (1985).

Thus, “[w]here the Constitution is silent about the exer-
cise of a particular power[,] that is, where the Constitution 
does  not  speak  either  expressly  or  by  necessary  implica-
tion,”  the  power  is  “either  delegated  to  the  state  govern-
ment or retained by the people.”  U. S. Term Limits, supra, 
at 847–848 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); cf. Martin v. Hunter’s 
Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 326 (1816) (stating that the Federal 
Government’s powers under the Constitution must be “ex-
pressly given, or given by necessary implication”). 

B 
This fundamental allocation of power applies in the con-
text of the electoral college.  Article II, §1, and the Twelfth 
Amendment address the election of the President through 
a body of electors.  These sections of the Constitution pro-
vide the Federal Government with limited powers concern-
ing the election, set various requirements for the electors,
and impose an affirmative obligation on States to appoint
electors.  Art. II, §1; Amdt. 12.  Each of these directives is 
consistent  with  the  general  structure  of  the  Constitution
and the principle of reserved powers.  See supra, at 9–10; 
U. S. Term Limits, supra, at 863 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).
Put simply, nothing in the text or structure of Article II and 
the Twelfth Amendment contradicts the fundamental dis-
tribution of power preserved by the Tenth Amendment. 

Of course, the powers reserved to the States concerning 
Presidential electors cannot “be exercised in such a way as 
to  violate  express  constitutional  commands.”    Williams  v.