Opinion ID: 1918218
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nurse Aide Regulations

Text: ¶ 9. Molden [1] and Avery first contend that the Department's adoption of Nurse Aide Regulations pursuant to a federal mandate violates traditional principles of federalism and is therefore unconstitutional. Molden and Avery rely on the recent United States Supreme Court opinions in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992), and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997), in alleging that the Department adopted the regulations, i.e., Regulations Related to the Removal of Nurse Aides from the Registry, pursuant to a Congressional mandate which violated traditional principles of federalism. However, Molden and Avery do not challenge the constitutionality of the federal regulations, but rather, they challenge the Department's own regulations on the grounds that (1) the Department lacked statutory authority to adopt the regulations and (2) the regulations represent an unconstitutional implementation of the federal government's own policies. The Department, however, contends that the regulations regarding nurse aides were voluntarily adopted pursuant to a contract with the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration and, thus, that the Department was not mandated by the federal government to enact a federal regulatory scheme. As a result, the Department asserts that its implementation of the regulations does not violate traditional principles of federalism. ¶ 10. In New York v. United States , the State of New York and two of its counties challenged, on Tenth Amendment grounds, federal legislation which required the States under certain conditions to take title to lowlevel radioactive waste generated within their borders. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 154, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992). The Supreme Court framed the issue in the case as regarding the circumstances under which Congress may use the States as implements of regulation; that is, whether Congress may direct or otherwise motivate the States to regulate in a particular field or a particular way. New York, 505 U.S. at 161, 112 S.Ct. 2408. The Court concluded that: Because an instruction to state governments to take title to waste, standing alone, would be beyond the authority of Congress, and because a direct order to regulate, standing alone, would also be beyond the authority of Congress, it follows that Congress lacks the power to offer the States a choice between the two.... Either way,  the Act commandeers the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program, an outcome that has never been understood to lie within the authority conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. Id. at 176, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). ¶ 11. The Supreme Court in Printz v. United States expanded on the issue of the power of Congress relative to the States. Printz was an action brought by two county sheriffs to challenge the constitutionality of a portion of the Brady Act which required the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of certain localities to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 2369, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997). The Supreme Court summarized the requirements of the Brady Act as follows: Regulated firearms dealers are required to forward Brady Forms not to a federal officer or employee, but to the CLEOs, whose obligation to accept those forms is implicit in the duty imposed upon them to make reasonable efforts within five days to determine whether the sales reflected in the forms are lawful. While the CLEOs are subjected to no federal requirement that they prevent the sales determined to be unlawful (it is perhaps assumed that their state-law duties will require prevention or apprehension), they are empowered to grant, in effect, waivers of the federally prescribed 5-day waiting period for handgun purchases by notifying the gun dealers that they have no reason to believe the transaction would be illegal. Printz, 117 S.Ct. at 2369. The Supreme Court, relying on its holding in New York, stated: We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.