Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 21

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

  Five  years  after  New  York,  the  Court  applied  the  same
principles to a federal statute requiring state and local law 
enforcement  officers  to  perform  background  checks  and 
related tasks in connection with applications for handgun
licenses.  Printz,  521  U. S.  898.  Holding  this  provision
unconstitutional,  the  Court  put  the  point  succinctly:  “The
Federal  Government”  may  not  “command  the  States’ 
officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to adminis­
ter  or  enforce  a  federal  regulatory  program.”  Id.,  at  935. 
This  rule  applies,  Printz  held,  not  only  to  state  officers
with  policymaking  responsibility  but  also  to  those  as­
signed more mundane tasks.  Id., at 929–930. 

B 
Our  opinions  in  New  York  and  Printz  explained  why 

adherence  to  the  anticommandeering  principle  is  im­
portant.  Without attempting a complete survey, we men­
tion several reasons that are significant here.

First, the rule serves as “one of the Constitution’s struc­
tural  protections  of  liberty.”    Printz,  supra,  at  921.    “The 
Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for 
the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract 
political entities.”  New York, supra, at 181.  “To the con­
trary,  the  Constitution  divides  authority  between  federal
and  state  governments  for  the  protection  of  individuals.” 
Ibid.    “ ‘[A]  healthy  balance  of  power  between  the  States
and the Federal Government [reduces] the risk of tyranny 
and  abuse  from  either  front.’ ”  Id.,  at  181–182  (quoting 
Gregory, 501 U. S., at 458). 

Second,  the  anticommandeering  rule  promotes  political 

accountability.  When  Congress  itself  regulates,  the  re­
sponsibility for the benefits and burdens of the regulation 
is  apparent.  Voters  who  like  or  dislike  the  effects  of  the 
regulation know who to credit or blame.  By contrast, if a
State  imposes  regulations  only  because  it  has  been  com­
manded  to  do  so  by  Congress,  responsibility  is  blurred.