What was the Supreme Court's ruling in Printz v. United States?

In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot compel state officers to execute federal laws. This landmark decision was significant because it reaffirmed the principles of federalism, emphasizing the limited powers of the federal government over the states. The Court determined that while the federal government has the authority to enact laws, it cannot force state officials to carry out those laws, thus protecting the states' responsibilities and powers.

The case arose from a challenge to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required state and local law enforcement to conduct background checks on potential gun purchasers. The Supreme Court held that this requirement violated the Constitution's structure, particularly the principle of dual sovereignty, meaning that state and federal governments operate independently within their own spheres of authority. Therefore, the ruling underscored the idea that the federal government must respect the autonomy of the states and cannot use coercive means to enforce federal legislation through state personnel. This decision has had far-reaching implications for federal-state relations, reinforcing the balance of power between the two levels of government.