Printz v. United States
United States Supreme Court
521 U.S. 898, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 138 L. Ed. 2d 914 (1997)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Congress enacted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) in 1993 as an amendment to its Gun Control Act of 1968. The Brady Act was a federal gun-control provision that required the United States attorney general to implement a nationwide handgun background-check system. While moving towards a national system, in the interim, state and local officials were required to conduct background checks of prospective firearm purchasers. Under the Brady Act, sellers of firearms would report sales to their county chief law-enforcement officers (CLEOs). The CLEOs would then conduct background checks and confirm the lawfulness of the sales. Printz and Mack (plaintiffs) were CLEOs in Montana and Arizona, respectively. Printz brought suit in federal district court against the United States government alleging that the Brady Act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power because it compelled state officers to participate in federal service. The district court held that the provision of the Brady Act requiring CLEOs to perform background checks was unconstitutional but held that this provision could be separated from the rest of the act, leaving a constitutional, voluntary background-check system in place. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that none of the Brady Act’s interim provisions were constitutional. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Souter, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.