Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 34

26 

HAALAND v. BRACKEEN 

Opinion of the Court 

The  anticommandeering  doctrine  applies  “distinctively”
to a state court’s adjudicative responsibilities.  Printz, 521 
U. S., at 907.  As we just explained, this distinction is evi-
dent in the Supremacy Clause, which refers specifically to
state judges.  Art. VI, cl. 2.  From the beginning, the text 
manifested in practice: As originally understood, the Con-
stitution  allowed  Congress  to  require  “state  judges  to  en-
force  federal  prescriptions,  insofar  as  those  prescriptions
related  to  matters  appropriate  for  the  judicial  power.” 
Printz, 521 U. S., at 907 (emphasis deleted).  In Printz, we 
indicated that this principle may extend to tasks that are 
“ancillary”  to a “quintessentially adjudicative  task”—such 
as “recording, registering, and certifying” documents.  Id., 
at 908, n. 2. 

Petitioners  reject  Printz’s  observation,  insisting  that
there is a distinction between rules of decision (which state
courts must follow) and recordkeeping requirements (which
they can ignore).  But Printz described numerous historical 
examples of Congress imposing recordkeeping and report-
ing  requirements  on  state  courts.    The  early  Congresses 
passed laws directing state courts to perform certain tasks
fairly described as “ancillary” to the courts’ adjudicative du-
ties.  For example, state courts were required to process and
record  applications  for  United  States  citizenship.    Act  of 
Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, §1, 1 Stat. 103–104.  The clerk (or other 
court official) was required “to certify and transmit” the ap-
plication to the Secretary of State, along with information
about “the name, age, nation, residence and occupation, for 
the  time  being,  of  the  alien.”    Act  of  June  18,  1798,  §2,  1 
Stat. 567.  The clerk also had to register aliens seeking nat-
uralization and issue certificates confirming the court’s re-
ceipt of the alien’s request for registration.  Act of Apr. 14, 

—————— 

the  State  to  make  that  choice  does  not  transform  the  documents  into 
something other than a court record.