What Is the 10th Amendment
The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states, or to the people, every power the Constitution does not give the federal government or deny to the states. Its most important rule today is anti-commandeering: Washington can enforce its own laws, but it cannot order state governments or their officers to do that work for it.
The 10th is the last of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. See all 27 in our constitutional amendments guide.
Key facts
- One sentence, ratified on December 15, 1791 as the last of the Bill of Rights (National Archives).
- The Supreme Court struck down federal laws for commandeering states in 1992, 1997, and 2018 (Cornell LII).
- Threatening a state’s whole Medicaid budget is “a gun to the head” (NFIB v. Sebelius, 2012).
- It does not let a state cancel federal law. Courts struck down Missouri’s attempt, and the Supreme Court declined review in 2025 (docket 24-796).
- Courts blocked 2025-26 grant cutoffs over sanctuary policies and quashed subpoenas of Minnesota’s governor.
The full text reads: “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” (Constitution Annotated).
In plain words, the federal government has only the powers the Constitution lists, and everything else stays with the states or the people. That is why states, not Washington, run most of daily civic life: schools, police, marriage and driver’s licenses, and elections within federal limits.
The sentence itself adds little that the rest of the Constitution does not already say. In 1941 the Supreme Court called it “a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered” (Cornell LII, on United States v. Darby). Its force today comes from one rule the Court built on it in the 1990s.
What Washington Can and Cannot Make a State Do
The closer Washington gets to ordering a state’s own government around, the less it is allowed to do. It can act through its own agents, override conflicting state law, and attach strings to money. It cannot give orders to a legislature or a sheriff.
How far the federal government can reach into a state
- Federal agents enforce federal law themselves Any power the Constitution grants
ICE, the FBI, and the DEA can operate in every state. In January 2026 a federal judge refused to halt an immigration surge in the Twin Cities on Tenth Amendment grounds.
- Federal law overrides a conflicting state law Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Under the Supremacy Clause, federal drug law still applied to medical marijuana that California law allowed.
- Federal money comes with conditions attached South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
Congress could withhold 5% of highway funds from states that kept a drinking age under 21. The Court called it "relatively mild encouragement."
- The condition is too big to refuse NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)
Threatening all of a state's existing Medicaid money, over 10% of a typical state budget, to force the ACA expansion was coercion.
- Congress orders a legislature to pass a law New York v. United States (1992)
Congress could not make states either regulate radioactive waste its way or take ownership of the waste.
- Congress orders state or local officers to enforce federal law Printz v. United States (1997)
The Brady Act could not make county sheriffs run gun background checks.
- Congress forbids a state from changing its own law Murphy v. NCAA (2018)
A federal ban that stopped states from legalizing sports betting was struck down.
| Step | The case that drew the line | What the Supreme Court allows |
|---|---|---|
| Federal agents enforce federal law themselves. ICE, the FBI, and the DEA can operate in every state. In January 2026 a federal judge refused to halt an immigration surge in the Twin Cities on Tenth Amendment grounds. | Any power the Constitution grants | Allowed |
| Federal law overrides a conflicting state law. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal drug law still applied to medical marijuana that California law allowed. | Gonzales v. Raich (2005) | Allowed |
| Federal money comes with conditions attached. Congress could withhold 5% of highway funds from states that kept a drinking age under 21. The Court called it "relatively mild encouragement." | South Dakota v. Dole (1987) | Allowed, within limits |
| The condition is too big to refuse. Threatening all of a state's existing Medicaid money, over 10% of a typical state budget, to force the ACA expansion was coercion. | NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) | Not allowed |
| Congress orders a legislature to pass a law. Congress could not make states either regulate radioactive waste its way or take ownership of the waste. | New York v. United States (1992) | Not allowed |
| Congress orders state or local officers to enforce federal law. The Brady Act could not make county sheriffs run gun background checks. | Printz v. United States (1997) | Not allowed |
| Congress forbids a state from changing its own law. A federal ban that stopped states from legalizing sports betting was struck down. | Murphy v. NCAA (2018) | Not allowed |
Sources: Supreme Court opinions in each case, via Cornell LII; Minnesota v. Noem, D. Minn., January 31, 2026.
That ladder explains most of the news. When a county jail declines to hold someone for ICE past their release date, it is standing on the Printz rung. When a federal agency attaches immigration conditions to a grant, the fight is over whether the condition is mild encouragement or a gun to the head.
How the Supreme Court Built the Rule
The modern rule rests on four cases decided between 1992 and 2018. Constitution Annotated calls the first of them, New York v. United States, “the genesis of the Supreme Court’s ‘anti-commandeering’ doctrine” (Cornell LII).
- The Tenth Amendment is ratified In 1789 Congress had rejected a version limiting Washington to powers "expressly" delegated.
- United States v. Darby A unanimous Court calls the amendment "a truism" and upholds federal wage and hour law.
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority The Court leaves most protection of the states to Congress, not judges.
- New York v. United States Congress cannot force states to enact or run a federal program.
- Printz v. United States Washington cannot draft sheriffs to run federal background checks.
- NFIB v. Sebelius Threatening a state's whole Medicaid budget is coercion.
- Murphy v. NCAA Forbidding a state to change its own law is commandeering too.
Source: Constitution Annotated, via Cornell LII; Supreme Court opinions.
The Tenth Amendment in the Supreme Court, 1791 to 2018: 1791: The Tenth Amendment is ratified (In 1789 Congress had rejected a version limiting Washington to powers "expressly" delegated.). 1941: United States v. Darby (A unanimous Court calls the amendment "a truism" and upholds federal wage and hour law.). 1985: Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (The Court leaves most protection of the states to Congress, not judges.). 1992: New York v. United States (Congress cannot force states to enact or run a federal program.). 1997: Printz v. United States (Washington cannot draft sheriffs to run federal background checks.). 2012: NFIB v. Sebelius (Threatening a state's whole Medicaid budget is coercion.). 2018: Murphy v. NCAA (Forbidding a state to change its own law is commandeering too.).
1791: The amendment was ratified on December 15. Two years earlier, while Congress drafted it, the House voted 17 to 32 against adding “expressly” before “delegated,” a word that would have tied Congress to its listed powers far more tightly (Cornell LII). The Senate rejected it as well.
1941: In United States v. Darby, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote for a unanimous Court that the amendment “states but a truism,” and the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act. Stone became chief justice later that year (Supreme Court).
1985: In Garcia, Constitution Annotated says, the Court “adopted a narrow conception of states’ reserved powers.” As the Court later put it, Garcia left the protection of the states “primarily to the political process” (Cornell LII).
1992: In New York v. United States, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that Congress cannot “compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”
1997: Printz applied the same rule to officers. The Brady Act had ordered local chief law enforcement officers to make “a reasonable effort” to check a buyer’s background within five business days. Jay Printz, sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana, and Richard Mack, sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, sued separately and won 5-4 (Printz v. United States).
2012: In NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined on this point by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, wrote that threatening states with the loss of “over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget” left them “no real option.” The four dissenters agreed the threat was coercive.
2018: In Murphy v. NCAA, Justice Samuel Alito rejected the argument that commandeering covers only orders to act, not orders not to act: “This distinction is empty.” A federal law that told states they could not legalize sports betting fell (Murphy).
Where the 10th Amendment Stops
The Tenth Amendment protects a state’s own government. It does not let a state cancel federal law or keep federal agents out. Three limits come up again and again.
Federal Law Still Binds People in Every State
Under the Supremacy Clause, valid federal law beats conflicting state law. In Gonzales v. Raich, federal drug law applied to medical marijuana grown at home for Angel Raich and Diane Monson, even though California allowed it.
Missouri tested this from the other side. Its 2021 Second Amendment Preservation Act declared some federal gun laws “invalid to this State.” On August 26, 2024, the Eighth Circuit struck the law down. The court wrote that if Missouri wants to stop helping enforce valid federal gun laws, “it may do so by other means that are lawful,” but it cannot call them “invalid to this State” (opinion). The Trump Justice Department filed a brief opposing Missouri’s appeal, and the Supreme Court declined it on October 6, 2025 (docket 24-796).
Money With Strings Is Usually Allowed
Congress can attach conditions to grants. South Dakota v. Dole allowed a 5% highway-fund penalty to push a drinking age of 21. The line, drawn in NFIB, is coercion: a condition so large that no state could realistically refuse. Most grant fights since 2025 turn on this line and on a simpler one: whether Congress ever authorized the condition at all. Our federalism explainer shows how much of each state’s budget comes from federal grants.
Federal Agents Can Still Operate Inside a State
Anti-commandeering stops Washington from drafting state officers. It has never been used to remove federal officers. In January 2026, Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul asked a federal court to halt Operation Metro Surge, which grew when ICE sent 2,000 officers and agents to the area early in January (AP via PBS NewsHour). Judge Katherine Menendez called the evidence of harm “profound and even heartbreaking” but denied the request on January 31, 2026, finding the state unlikely to win on its Tenth Amendment theory (JURIST).
The 2025-26 Court Fights
The administration’s main pressure tool has been federal money, and courts have mostly blocked it. Most of the wins came on the spending limits and on federal statutes, not on anti-commandeering alone.
Where the Main Federalism Cases Stand
As of September 26, 2026
- Cutting grants to sanctuary cities and counties Blocked by a court, on appeal
Judge William Orrick blocked the cuts on April 24, 2025 and extended it to 34 more cities and counties on August 22, 2025. The government's Ninth Circuit appeal had not been decided as of April 2026. (source)
- Immigration conditions on transportation grants Final ruling, appeal dropped
A Rhode Island federal judge ruled the condition unlawful on November 4, 2025, and the Transportation Department dropped its appeal on January 13, 2026. (source)
- Ending $600 million in CDC grants to four states Blocked by a court, preliminary
A federal court in Illinois issued a preliminary injunction on March 13, 2026. (source)
- Subpoenas to Minnesota's governor and officials Blocked by a court, quashed
Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz quashed six grand jury subpoenas on June 22, 2026, finding they were issued to coerce Minnesota officials into cooperating with immigration enforcement. (source)
- Suits against state and city sanctuary laws In litigation, mostly dismissed
Courts dismissed the suits against Illinois, New York, Colorado, Boston, New Jersey cities and Minnesota between July 2025 and July 2026 (ILRC). The Justice Department called its July 9, 2026 Maryland suit the latest in a series of 20 others. (source)
- Operation Metro Surge in the Twin Cities In litigation, halt denied
Judge Katherine Menendez denied Minnesota's request to halt the operation on January 31, 2026. (source)
The transportation ruling is the clearest win on the money question. The Transportation Department had told grant recipients they must cooperate with ICE, and the judge found it had “blatantly overstepped” the conditions Congress wrote (NACo). The sanctuary cities explainer covers the city and state cases in detail.
Red and Blue States Both Invoke the 10th Amendment
Anti-commandeering protects whichever states disagree with the party in power in Washington. The sheriffs in Printz were fighting a gun law passed under a Democratic president. The same ruling now protects cities that decline to hold people for ICE.
The same rule, invoked from both directions
Source: Supreme Court opinions via Cornell LII; Eighth Circuit; JURIST; NACo
The Legal Debate Over Anti-Commandeering
Supporters of the rule argue it keeps voters able to tell who is responsible. In New York v. United States, Justice O’Connor wrote that when Washington directs the states, “it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval,” while the federal officials who wrote the program stay insulated.
Critics argue the rule makes the federal government bigger, not smaller. Dissenting in Printz, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have the Federal Government create vast national bureaucracies to implement its policies,” since it can no longer borrow local officers.
The rule also cuts both ways in practice. The Trump Justice Department opposed Missouri’s appeal in the gun law case while suing over sanctuary policies that rest on Printz.
What the 10th Amendment Does Not Do
No State Can Nullify Federal Law
States cannot declare a valid federal statute void. South Carolina tried in 1832, and the Missouri gun law failed on the same principle in 2024.
States’ Rights Is No License to Discriminate
“States’ rights” was the rallying cry against school desegregation. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court held that Arkansas officials were bound by Brown v. Board of Education. Anti-commandeering governs whether Washington can conscript a state’s machinery. It never lets a state violate constitutional rights.
Washington Can Still Pressure States
Conditions on money, preemption, and federal agents all remain available to the federal government, within the limits in the ladder above. States use preemption on their own cities with far fewer limits, as our explainer on state preemption shows.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an example of a violation of the 10th Amendment?
Printz v. United States (1997) is the textbook example. The Brady Act ordered local sheriffs to run background checks on gun buyers, and the Supreme Court struck that order down because Washington cannot draft state officers.
What does the 10th Amendment mean in simple terms?
If the Constitution does not give a power to the federal government, and does not forbid it to the states, the states or the people keep it.
Can a state refuse to help ICE?
A state or city can decline to use its own police or jails for federal immigration enforcement. In dismissing the Justice Department’s suit against Colorado in March 2026, a federal court called state help with federal immigration enforcement “necessarily voluntary.” A state cannot stop federal agents from enforcing federal law, and one federal statute, 8 U.S.C. 1373, says no government may restrict sharing a person’s citizenship or immigration status with federal immigration officials.
Is the 10th Amendment the same as "states' rights"?
No. The Tenth Amendment is one sentence of constitutional text, and anti-commandeering is the specific rule courts enforce under it: Congress may not order states to enact or run a federal regulatory program. “States’ rights” is a broader political phrase, and it gives a state no power over constitutional rights. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court held that state officials cannot nullify the rights declared in Brown v. Board of Education.
What You Can Do
- Find out what your state and city have decided. Whether your local jail honors ICE detainers is a state or local choice. The sanctuary cities explainer lists the places on the federal list and the laws behind them.
- Watch your statehouse. Some states now ban local limits on ICE cooperation. Tennessee made it a felony for local officials to vote for one until a February 2026 settlement blocked that penalty (Fox 17). Track bills at openstates.org and testify before they pass.
- Hold the principle when your side dislikes the result. Tell your representatives you want the anti-commandeering rule protected whether it shields a red state or a blue one. That consistency is what makes it hold in court.
- Support the lawyers bringing these cases. State attorneys general, Democracy Forward, and the ACLU brought most of the 2025-26 challenges.
- Write your members of Congress asking them to vote against conditioning federal grants on state help with immigration enforcement. Use the letter and call script below.