Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

28 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

Opinion of the Court 

§3, 1 Stat. 548 (“proof of the several circumstances neces-
sary to entitle the applicants to the benefits of this act, may 
be taken before . . . a judge of the supreme or superior court, 
or the first justice or first judge of the court of common pleas 
or country court of any state”). 

There  is  more.  Shortly  after  ratification,  Congress
passed a detailed statute that required state-court judges
to  gather  and  certify  reports.  Act  of  July  20,  1790,  §3,  1 
Stat. 132.  The Act authorized commanders of ships to re-
quest examinations of their vessels from any “justice of the
peace  of  the  city,  town  or  place.”  Ibid.    The  judge  would
order three qualified people to prepare a report on the ves-
sel’s condition, which the judge would review and “endorse.” 
Ibid.  Then, the judge was required to issue an order regard-
ing “whether the said ship or vessel is fit to proceed on the 
intended  voyage;  and  if  not,  whether  such  repairs  can  be
made or deficiencies supplied where the ship or vessel then
lays.”  Ibid. 

These early congressional enactments “provid[e] ‘contem-
poraneous  and  weighty  evidence’  of  the  Constitution’s
meaning.”  Bowsher  v.  Synar,  478  U. S.  714,  723  (1986). 
Collectively,  they  demonstrate  that  the  Constitution  does 
not prohibit the Federal Government from imposing adju-
dicative  tasks  on  state  courts.    This  makes  sense  against
the backdrop of the Madisonian Compromise: Since Article 
III established only the Supreme Court and made inferior 
federal courts optional, Congress could have relied almost
entirely  on  state  courts  to  apply  federal  law.    Printz,  521 
U. S.,  at  907.    Had  Congress  taken  that  course,  it  would 
have  had  to  rely  on  state  courts  to  perform  adjudication-
adjacent tasks too. 

We now confirm what we suggested in Printz: Congress
may impose ancillary recordkeeping requirements related 
to  state-court  proceedings  without  violating  the  Tenth
Amendment.  Such requirements do not offload the Federal 
Government’s responsibilities onto the States, nor do they