Tenth Amendment — LLMpedia

Tenth Amendment
Ssolbergj · Public domain · source
Name	Tenth Amendment
Ratified	December 15, 1791
Partof	Bill of Rights
Purpose	Allocation of powers between United States Constitution and States of the United States

Contents

Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment is the final provision of the Bill of Rights that addresses the distribution of powers between the federal system and the States of the United States. It was adopted during the ratification of the United States Constitution and has been central to disputes involving figures such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Debates over its meaning have animated controversies involving institutions like the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Congress, and state executives such as the Governor of New York and the Governor of Texas.

Text of the Amendment

The Amendment states that powers not delegated to the United States by the United States Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States of the United States, are reserved to the States of the United States respectively, or to the people. Drafting and wording trace through correspondence among James Madison, George Mason, and delegates from the Philadelphia Convention such as Roger Sherman and Gouverneur Morris. Early printings and ratification records involve the First Congress and state ratifying conventions in Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.

Framing debates arose during the ratification era between proponents of the Federalist Papers like Alexander Hamilton and opponents such as the Anti-Federalist Papers authors including Brutus and Cato. The Amendment responded to demands by state ratifying conventions in Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Virginia insisting on safeguards similar to proposals by figures like Edmund Randolph and George Mason. Ratification involved political actors such as John Adams and legislative bodies like the Continental Congress and the Virginia Convention. The Bill of Rights debates intersected with contemporaneous events including the Whiskey Rebellion and foreign affairs with France and Great Britain that tested federal authority under the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly construed the Amendment in landmark decisions. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court addressed federal supremacy and the Necessary and Proper Clause in disputes involving Second Bank of the United States and state taxation. Gibbons v. Ogden examined interstate commerce and involved litigants from New York and New Jersey. Twentieth-century and modern cases include United States v. Lopez, which limited the scope of the Commerce Clause in a dispute involving the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and defendants from Albuquerque, New Mexico. Printz v. United States confronted federal commandeering of state officials in relation to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Murphy v. NCAA dealt with state autonomy and the federal antidiscrimination apparatus in the context of New Jersey sports betting. These decisions involved justices such as John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Stephen Breyer and were argued by advocates from institutions like the American Civil Liberties Union and state attorneys general.

Political movements from states' rights advocates to defenders of expansive federal power such as proponents of the New Deal have invoked the Amendment. Legislative battles in the United States Congress over statutes including the Affordable Care Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 saw state actors like the Attorney General of Texas and organizations such as the National Governors Association weigh in. Partisan actors including the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have used the Amendment in policy arguments about federal mandates, preemption conflicts involving Environmental Protection Agency, and fiscal conditionality tied to programs like Medicaid and No Child Left Behind Act.

Contemporary disputes invoke the Amendment in litigation by states such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida against federal agencies including the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. Issues include immigration policies tied to state immigration law controversies, healthcare exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, and state regulation of firearms and marijuana as in litigation by entities like the National Rifle Association and state attorneys general. The Amendment also informs debates over federalism in administrative law involving the Administrative Procedure Act and interbranch disputes argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Scholars from institutions such as Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Columbia Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School have debated originalist readings by commentators like Antonin Scalia and textualist scholars against living constitutionalist positions advocated by figures associated with The Atlantic and law reviews connected to Georgetown University Law Center. Critical perspectives appear in works by historians like Gordon S. Wood and legal theorists such as Akhil Reed Amar and Bruce Ackerman, who analyze the Amendment alongside the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause. Debates address whether the Amendment functions as a substantive constraint on federal authority, a rule of structural federalism, or a political norm enforceable primarily through state elections and institutions such as state legislatures and governors.