How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution?

The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution states that the “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.” The Supreme Court of Hawaii has looked to this amendment in relation to several constitutional issues. In the 2009 case of Aila v. Lands & Natural Resources, the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the State of Hawaii could not abrogate its duty to protect public trust resources from environmental impact regardless of the impact that it may have on landowners’ profit potential. In the 1994 case of Kou v. Tax Appeal Court, the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the State of Hawaii could impose a tax on instant lottery winners in accordance with the Hawaii Constitution, as this does not conflict with any powers delegated to the United States of America. Furthermore, in the 2018 case of State v. Kupau, the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the State of Hawaii was allowed to reduce the amount of criminal record expungement fees, as this did not conflict with any powers delegated to the United States of America. The Court held that this was an exercise of the State’s police powers which are granted by the Tenth Amendment and not in violation of the US Constitution. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Hawaii has consistently held that any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the State and its citizens. This includes the power to regulate public trust resources, the power to impose taxes, and the power to reduce criminal record expungement fees.

How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts