Which case held that the federal government cannot require state officers to perform federal background checks under the Brady Act?

• A. Printz v. United States (1997)
• B. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
• C. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
• D. Lopez v. United States (1995)

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is the anti-commandeering principle in federalism: the federal government cannot force state officers to enforce federal laws. In United States v. Printz (1997), the Supreme Court held that parts of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required state and local police to perform background checks on handgun buyers imposed federal duties on state officials and thus commandeered state governments. Because Congress cannot compel state officers to administer federal programs, those provisions were ruled unconstitutional. This case establishes the rule that the federal government may regulate or incentivize state action, but it cannot coerce states into enforcing federal measures. The other cases do not address this specific restriction: Wickard v. Filburn and McCulloch v. Maryland deal with broad questions of federal power and supremacy, while Lopez v. United States concerns limits on the Commerce Clause.