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

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution “are reserved to the States…or to the people”. In other words, this amendment gives states the authority to regulate their own affairs unless prohibited by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has interpreted this Amendment in several important ways. First, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Tenth Amendment limits the federal government’s power to interfere with matters of purely local concern, such as education. For example, in United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 because it exceeded the federal government’s authority to regulate local matters. Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from impairing the states’ sovereign powers. For instance, in New York v. United States, the Court found that the Federal Government could not compel states to take on certain responsibilities because doing so would exceed its authority under the Tenth Amendment. Finally, the Supreme Court has held that the Tenth Amendment acts as a check on Congress’ power to pass laws regulating interstate commerce. In United States v. Morrison, the Court ruled that the Violence Against Women Act was an unconstitutional exercise of federal power because it went beyond Congress’ authority to regulate commerce among the states. Overall, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution as a way to protect state sovereignty and limit the federal government’s powers. In doing so, the Court has preserved the balance of power between the states and the federal government.

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

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts