Opinion ID: 2625
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tenth Amendment and Fundamental Principles of Federalism

Text: The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that [t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. U.S. Const. amend. X. The City claims that the PLCAA impermissibly dictates to the states which branch of their government may authoritatively articulate state law  to wit, that the Act prohibits courts from giving effect to the states' exercise of their lawmaking power through the judicial branch. According to the City, the Act recognizes the authority of states' legislatures to create a predicate exception to qualified civil liability actions by enacting a statute expressly applicable to the sale of firearms, whereas if a state court interprets a general statute as applicable to the sale of firearms, such an interpretation would not create a predicate exception under the Act. According to the City, the Act impermissibly oversteps [ ] fundamental limits when it determines which branch of state government will be recognized by the Federal Government as the authoritative expositor of any state's pertinent laws. This argument is apparently in response to the interpretation of the Act advanced by the Firearms Suppliers at oral argument before the District Court. See Beretta, 401 F.Supp.2d at 264. The Firearms Suppliers argued that a predicate statute must explicitly mention firearms and that a general statute could not serve as a predicate statute even if a state's highest court were to construe that statute as applicable to firearms. Id. We disagree with this argument and, as set forth in more detail below, do not construe the PLCAA as foreclosing the possibility that predicate statutes can exist by virtue of interpretations by state courts. We agree with the District Court in its rejection of the Firearms Suppliers' argument that a statute must expressly mention firearms in order to qualify as a predicate statute. The District Court held that the Firearms Suppliers' argument misconstrues the relationship of courts and legislatures in New York. The law is not only the language that the legislature adopts, but what the courts construe to be its meaning in individual cases. Id. at 266 (citing N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 1 (unified court system); N.Y. Const. art. 6, § 2 (jurisdiction of Court of Appeals); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 103 (form of civil judicial proceedings)). In any event, the critical inquiry with respect to the Tenth Amendment is whether the PLCAA commandeers the states. See Connecticut v. Physicians Health Servs. of Conn., Inc., 287 F.3d 110, 122 (2d Cir.2002). As the City concedes, the PLCAA does not. We have explained that [f]ederal statutes validly enacted under one of Congress's enumerated powers  here, the Commerce Clause  cannot violate the Tenth Amendment unless they commandeer the states' executive officials, See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 933, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997), or legislative processes, See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 161-66, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992); see also Cellular Phone Taskforce v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 205 F.3d 82, 96 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that a federal telecommunications law preempting states' ability to regulate the health and safety issues with respect to certain personal wireless service facilities does not violate the Tenth Amendment because the statute does not commandeer local authorities to administer a federal program); City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29, 35 (2d Cir.1999) (holding [in relevant part] that the Tenth Amendment is a shield against the federal government's using state and local governments to enact and administer federal programs. . . .); United States v. Sage, 92 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.1996) (concluding that the Child Support Recovery Act does not violate the Tenth Amendment because it does not compel[ ] a State to enact and enforce a federal family program); accord United States v. Bostic, 168 F.3d 718, 724 (4th Cir.1999) (holding that a federal gun statute does not violate the Tenth Amendment because it was validly passed under the Commerce Clause and imposes no affirmative obligation on the states). Id. at 122. The PLCAA does not commandeer any branch of state government because it imposes no affirmative duty of any kind on any of them. See id. The PLCAA therefore does not violate the Tenth Amendment. See id.