Federalism and the uses and limits of law: Printz and principle?

Harvard Law Review

Volumn 112, Issue 8, 1998, Pages 2181-

  Jackson, Vicki C ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042636812     PISSN: 0017811X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1342457     Document Type: Article

References (1)

1. See Printz v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 2365 (1997) (declaring unconstitutional a requirement that local law enforcement officers perform background checks on gun purchasers); Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996) (holding that the extension of federal jurisdiction to suits against states to enforce negotiating duties under Indian gaming law violates the Eleventh Amendment); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 567-68 (1995) (holding a federal criminal statute prohibiting gun possession near schools to be an unconstitutional regulation of activity insufficiently connected to interstate commerce); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (holding a federal hazardous waste law imposing obligations on states unconstitutional as prohibited commandeering of state government). For other evidence of the revival of federalism-based limits on national power, see Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 117 S. Ct. 2028 (1997), holding that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal jurisdiction over tribal action for declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials interfering with the tribe's asserted property interests in submerged lands, and City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997), referring to principles of feder