What is the 10th Amendment?
The Tenth Amendment says that any power the Constitution does not give the federal government, and does not deny to the states, is reserved to the states or the people. In practice, its most important rule is anti-commandeering: Washington cannot force states or their officials to carry out federal law.
Key facts
- It is a single sentence, ratified in 1791 as the last article of the Bill of Rights (National Constitution Center).
- The Supreme Court has struck major federal laws twice for commandeering states: Printz v. United States (1997) and Murphy v. NCAA (2018, 6-3) (Congress.gov).
- In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Court held Washington could not threaten a state’s entire Medicaid budget to force it to expand, calling it “economic dragooning” (Justia).
- The same rule shields sanctuary cities, state marijuana legalization, and state abortion protections from federal override.
- In 2026, courts repeatedly blocked the administration from defunding sanctuary jurisdictions and from coercing Minnesota officials over immigration enforcement.
The amendment text is short, on its own mostly a reminder that the federal government has only the powers the Constitution grants. The force comes from how the Supreme Court has read it, not as a vague nod to “states’ rights,” but as a hard line against one specific federal move.
How the Anti-Commandeering Rule Works
The anti-commandeering rule is simple to state. The federal government can pass its own laws and run its own programs with its own agents. It cannot order a state legislature to pass a law, and it cannot order a state’s police, sheriffs, or clerks to enforce a federal one.
The federal government can still persuade. Washington offers money with strings, and states usually take the deal. It can also preempt state law in areas the Constitution gives it, like interstate commerce. What it cannot do is conscript the states themselves into doing federal work.
That line between persuading and conscripting is why a county jail can decline an ICE detainer, why a state can refuse to help enforce a federal gun registry, and why Congress cannot make a governor run a federal program for free.
The Supreme Court Cases That Built the Rule
The modern anti-commandeering doctrine was built case by case, mostly over the last 35 years. The arc runs from radioactive waste to sports betting, and the principle held across very different politics.
- The Tenth Amendment is ratified The Bill of Rights reserves undelegated powers to the states or the people.
- New York v. United States Congress cannot force states to enact or administer a federal program (radioactive waste).
- Printz v. United States Washington cannot commandeer state officers to run federal background checks.
- Gonzales v. Raich A limit: federal commerce power can override state medical-marijuana law.
- NFIB v. Sebelius Threatening a state's whole Medicaid budget to force expansion is unconstitutional coercion.
- Murphy v. NCAA A federal ban that told states they could not legalize sports betting is struck down.
- The funding fights Courts block efforts to defund sanctuary jurisdictions and coerce state officials.
Sources: Supreme Court; Congressional Research Service.
How the Supreme Court built anti-commandeering: 1791 — The Tenth Amendment is ratified (The Bill of Rights reserves undelegated powers to the states or the people.). 1992 — New York v. United States (Congress cannot force states to enact or administer a federal program (radioactive waste).). 1997 — Printz v. United States (Washington cannot commandeer state officers to run federal background checks.). 2005 — Gonzales v. Raich (A limit: federal commerce power can override state medical-marijuana law.). 2012 — NFIB v. Sebelius (Threatening a state's whole Medicaid budget to force expansion is unconstitutional coercion.). 2018 — Murphy v. NCAA (A federal ban that told states they could not legalize sports betting is struck down.). 2026 — The funding fights (Courts block efforts to defund sanctuary jurisdictions and coerce state officials.).
In Murphy v. NCAA, Justice Samuel Alito made the principle plain. There is no real difference, he wrote, between Washington ordering a state to act and Washington forbidding it from acting. Either way, the federal government is commandeering the state.
The Two Limits on the 10th Amendment
The 10th Amendment is a real limit, not a magic shield. It does not let a state ignore valid federal law. Two boundaries matter most.
The Supremacy Clause
When the federal government regulates within its own powers, like interstate commerce, federal law wins and can preempt conflicting state law. Gonzales v. Raich showed this, upholding federal marijuana enforcement even against a state that had legalized the drug.
The Spending Power
Congress can attach conditions to federal money, and states usually comply to keep the funds. The limit, drawn in NFIB v. Sebelius, is coercion. Washington cannot make the condition so large, like a state’s entire Medicaid budget, that no state could realistically say no.
The Federalism Fights of 2025 and 2026
Federalism is not a museum piece. It is the live battleground of 2025 and 2026, and the 10th Amendment sits at the center.
The administration has tried to cut federal funding to sanctuary cities and their states, threatened to pull housing money from places that will not enforce camping bans, and subpoenaed state officials who declined to help with immigration enforcement. Courts have blocked these moves one after another, citing the limits above.
- 6
- majority-Black congressional districts and sanctuary fights testing federal limits
- 56
- state bills on immigration cooperation introduced in 2026 alone
- 2026
- courts quashed DOJ subpoenas of Minnesota officials as coercion
The same anti-commandeering principle runs through abortion after Dobbs, which returned the question to the states, and through marijuana, where states legalize despite a standing federal ban. Washington can disagree with these choices. Under the Tenth Amendment, it generally cannot force a state to reverse them.
Why Both Parties Invoke the 10th Amendment
Here is the part that gets lost in the noise. Anti-commandeering is not a left or right tool. It protects whichever states are out of step with whoever holds federal power.
The same constitutional rule, invoked across the spectrum.
| Issue | How a state uses the Tenth Amendment |
|---|---|
| Immigration | Declines to make local police do federal immigration enforcement |
| Abortion | Sets its own protections or its own restrictions after Dobbs |
| Marijuana | Legalizes despite the federal Controlled Substances Act |
| Guns | Declines to enforce a federal registry or, elsewhere, sets stricter limits |
| Medicaid | Refused the ACA expansion after the Court barred coercion |
The “fair-weather federalism” critique is that politicians cheer states’ rights only when their side benefits. The honest version is the opposite: the rule is worth defending precisely because it does not pick a side. The day it bends for one party is the day it stops protecting the other.
Common Misconceptions About the 10th Amendment
The 10th Amendment is invoked loosely, so a few distinctions keep it honest.
It is not a veto on federal law
States cannot “nullify” valid federal statutes. That theory lost decisively in the Civil War era and has no legal force today.
It is not a shield for discrimination
Federal civil rights laws bind the states under other constitutional powers, and “states’ rights” was once the slogan of segregation. The anti-commandeering rule is narrower. It governs whether Washington can conscript state machinery, not whether states can violate constitutional rights.
It is not unlimited
The Supremacy Clause and the spending power both constrain the amendment, as the two limits above show.
Frequently asked questions
What does the Tenth Amendment actually say? In one sentence: powers not given to the federal government, and not denied to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. Courts have built the anti-commandeering rule on top of that text.
Can the federal government force a state to enforce federal law? No. Under anti-commandeering, Washington cannot order state legislatures to pass laws or state officials to enforce federal ones. It can run its own enforcement and offer funding with conditions.
Does the Tenth Amendment let a state ignore federal law? No. Valid federal law still applies under the Supremacy Clause. The amendment limits whether the federal government can commandeer the state’s own institutions, not whether federal law binds people in that state.
Is “states’ rights” the same as the Tenth Amendment? Not exactly. “States’ rights” is a political phrase used across history for very different ends. The Tenth Amendment is the specific constitutional text, and anti-commandeering is the specific rule courts enforce.
What you can do
- Oppose federal funding coercion. When Washington threatens to cut a state’s funding unless it enforces federal policy, that tests the line the courts have drawn. Call your U.S. House member and senators at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to oppose conditioning federal funds on a state’s own policy choices. Use the letter below.
- Defend the principle when your side dislikes the outcome. The rule only holds if it is not partisan. Tell your representatives you want anti-commandeering protected whether it shields a red state or a blue one.
- Watch your statehouse. In 2026 alone, dozens of bills have moved to force or punish state cooperation with federal agencies. Track them at openstates.org and weigh in before they pass.
- Support the litigation. Groups like Democracy Forward and the ACLU are challenging federal coercion of states. The 2026 court wins came out of that work.