Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

10 

TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

Opinion of the Court 

the Court approved a federal statute that, among other pro-
visions,  tolled  state  statutes  of  limitations  in  state  courts 
for suits against soldiers while they were in service of the 
Union.  The  Court  described  Congress’  authority  as 
“carr[ying] with it inherently the power” to “remedy” state
efforts to frustrate national aims; objections sounding in or-
dinary federalism principles were “untenable.”  Id., at 507. 
In the early 20th century, the Court again rejected state-
sovereignty  objections  in  this  area,  this  time  to  the  draft.
See Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S., at 381.  We wrote 
that Congress’ authority to raise armies could not be quali-
fied  or  restricted  by  the  States  because  the  Constitution 
“manifestly intended to give . . . all” such power to the Fed-
eral Government and “leave none to the States.”  Ibid. 

Modern examples illustrate the same structural point.  In 
United States v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 643, 644–649 (1961), this
Court rejected a State’s Tenth Amendment challenge to a 
federal law providing that, when certain veterans die with-
out  heirs,  their  property  distributes  to  veterans’  facilities
rather  than  escheating  to  the  State.    Even  though  estate
and property law are areas “normally left to the States,” the
Court  explained  that  those  background  assumptions  are
displaced when it comes to Congress’ “constitutional powers 
to raise armies and navies.”  Id., at 648–649.  When, years
later, the Court adopted a broader view of state sovereignty
under the Tenth Amendment, the Court was careful to clar-
ify  that  “[n]othing  we  say  in  this  opinion  addresses  the
scope of Congress’ authority under its war power.”  National 
League  of  Cities  v.  Usery,  426  U. S.  833,  854–855,  n.  18 
(1976), overruled on other grounds, Garcia v. San Antonio 
Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528 (1985). 

Nor  is  the  Federal  Government’s  power  limited  to  the
“context of an actual war,” as we held more recently in Per-
pich  v.  Department  of  Defense,  496  U. S.  334,  349  (1990).
After the Governors of California and Maine refused to al-
low  their  States’  National  Guard  members  to  be  sent  on