commandeering

In United States law, it also refers to federal government actions which would force a state government to take some action that it otherwise would not take.{{cite court

|litigants = Conant v. Walters

|vol = 309

|reporter = F.3d

|opinion = 629

|pinpoint =

|court = 9th Cir.

|date = October 29, 2002

|url= http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/conant.htm}} The US Supreme Court has held that commandeering violates principles designed to prevent either the state or federal governments from becoming too powerful.{{cite court |litigants = New York v. United States | vol=505 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=144 | date=1992}}{{cite court | litigants=Printz v. United States | vol=521 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=898 | date=1997}}

Writing for the majority in 1997 for Printz v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "[t]he Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."{{cite court | litigants=Printz v. United States | vol=521 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=898 | pinpoint=935 | date=1997}} States derive their protection from commandeering from the Tenth Amendment.

The Congress may enact federal law that supersedes or preempts state law. The distinction between commandeering and preemption was at issue in Murphy v. NCAA, a case involving sports betting.{{cite news|last1=de Vogue|first1=Ariane|title=Chris Christie goes to the Supreme Court on sports betting|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/christie-scotus-sports-betting/index.html|accessdate=4 December 2017|publisher=CNN|date=4 December 2017}}{{cite web

|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2017/12/the_supreme_court_is_skeptical_of_the_ban_on_sports_betting.html |title=Chris Christie's Big Gamble: The Supreme Court appears poised to let every state authorize sports betting. |first=Mark Joseph | author-link = Mark Joseph Stern | last = Stern |publisher=Slate |date=4 December 2017}}

In the case of marijuana legalization, federal law preempts laws in those states that have authorized its use. The federal government has chosen not to enforce provisions of federal law that apply to otherwise law-abiding adult use in those states. If the Department of Justice were to challenge these state laws, a likely legal objection would be that this is commandeering.{{cite journal|last1=Schwartz|first1=Davis|title=High Federalism: Marijuana Legalization and the Limits of Federal Power to Regulate States|journal=Cardozo Law Review|date=March 21, 2013|volume=35|issue=567|ssrn=2237618}} Challenges to state-level marijuana legalizations in federal court have been unsuccessful for this reason.{{Cite web|url=https://www.governing.com/archive/tns-scotus-marijuana-nebraska-colorado.html|title=U.S. Supreme Court Rejects States' Challenge to Colorado Marijuana Law|date=March 21, 2016|website=Governing}}

• Federalism in the United States

{{Reflist}}

{{wiktionary|commandeer}}

• {{cite web |title=Can cops really commandeer cars? |url=https://www.straightdope.com/21343386/can-cops-really-commandeer-cars |website=The Straight Dope |access-date=April 30, 2021 |language=en |date=Apr 25, 2006}}
• {{cite web |last1=Mikkelson |first1=David |title=Do You Have to Surrender Your Car to the Police? |url=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/surrender-car-police/ |website=Snopes.com |access-date=April 30, 2021 |date=April 17, 2001}}

Category:American legal terminology

{{law-term-stub}}