Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 13

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

II

  In  Northwest  Austin,  we  stated  that  “the  Act  imposes
current  burdens  and  must  be  justified  by  current  needs.” 
557  U. S.,  at  203.    And  we  concluded  that  “a  departure
from  the  fundamental  principle  of  equal  sovereignty  re-
quires  a  showing  that  a  statute’s  disparate  geographic 
coverage  is  sufficiently  related  to  the  problem  that  it 
targets.”  Ibid.  These basic principles guide our review of 
the question before us.1 

A 

The Constitution and laws of the United States are “the 
supreme  Law  of  the  Land.”    U. S.  Const.,  Art.  VI,  cl. 2. 
State  legislation  may  not  contravene  federal  law.    The 
Federal  Government  does  not,  however,  have  a  general 
right  to  review  and  veto  state  enactments  before  they  go
into  effect.  A  proposal  to  grant  such  authority  to  “nega-
tive”  state  laws  was  considered  at  the  Constitutional 
Convention, but rejected in favor of allowing state laws to
take effect, subject to later challenge under the Supremacy
Clause.  See 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 
pp. 21,  164–168  (M.  Farrand  ed.  1911);  2  id.,  at  27–29, 
390–392. 

Outside  the  strictures  of  the  Supremacy  Clause,  States
retain  broad  autonomy  in  structuring  their  governments
and pursuing legislative objectives.  Indeed, the Constitu-
tion provides that all powers not specifically granted to the 
Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. 
Amdt. 10.  This “allocation of powers in our federal system
preserves  the  integrity,  dignity,  and  residual  sovereignty
of  the  States.”  Bond  v.  United  States,  564  U. S.  ___,  ___ 

—————— 

1 Both  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments  were  at  issue  in 
Northwest Austin, see Juris. Statement i, and Brief for Federal Appel-
lee 29–30, in Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 
O.  T.  2008,  No.  08–322,  and  accordingly  Northwest  Austin  guides  our
review under both Amendments in this case.