States’ Rights

In the 1990s the Supreme Court, guided by a slim conservative majority, issued a series of rulings that significantly expanded states’ rights. In 1992 the Court ruled that the federal government could not force states to comply with a federal law pertaining to the disposal of radioactive waste generated within a state’s borders. In 1997 the Court ruled unconstitutional a federal law compelling local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks of handgun purchasers. In three 5-to-4 decisions issued in 1999, the Court strengthened the principle of sovereign immunity, the idea that states are sovereign governments with immunity from lawsuits brought under federal law. In the three decisions, the Court said that states cannot be sued for violations of federal labor, patent, and false advertising laws. The Court outlined only two conditions in which a state may be sued: when Congress sets aside the sovereign immunity of the states in order to enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and when a state voluntarily waives its sovereign immunity and consents to the suit. The Court said that individuals may sue “lesser entities” such as cities or state officers in their individual capacities. In 2000, continuing the shift toward states’ rights, the Court ruled that state employees cannot sue states for age discrimination under federal law. In a similar ruling in 2001, the Court ruled that state employees cannot sue states for money damages for employment-discrimination violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Observers said the rulings, taken together, made it more difficult for individuals to sue states for violations of federal law.

However, the Court also surprised some observers with decisions that sided with federal authority. For example, in 1995 the Court ruled that states have no authority to impose term limits on someone’s service in Congress. In 2000 the Court unanimously ruled that Congress has the power to prohibit states from selling personal information on state drivers’ licenses and motor-vehicle registration records. In 2005 the Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that federal antidrug laws take precedence over state laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. The decision did not overturn voter-approved “medical marijuana” laws in 11 states. However, it did override any provisions in those laws exempting patients in possession of medical marijuana from federal prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act (part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970).