Historical Context and Purpose
The Tenth Amendment, ratified in 1791, states that powers not delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people. It was added to address concerns about potential federal overreach.
During the Constitution's ratification, Federalists argued against a Bill of Rights, believing the Constitution already limited government powers. Antifederalists demanded explicit protections for individual liberties. The Tenth Amendment was a compromise to allay these concerns.
Early Supreme Court decisions, like McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), interpreted the amendment narrowly. The court ruled Congress could create a national bank based on implied constitutional powers, limiting state authority.
The amendment's influence waned during the New Deal era as federal power expanded. However, it resurfaced in cases like Printz v. United States (1997), where the Court ruled federal law couldn't compel state officials to conduct background checks for gun purchases.
Recent years have seen increased invocation of the Tenth Amendment in debates over federal policies and state rights.1

Key Supreme Court Interpretations
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Affirmed broad federal powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, weakening the Tenth Amendment's restraint on federal authority.
- United States v. Darby (1941): Upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act, dismissing the Tenth Amendment as a "truism" that didn't limit federal power over interstate commerce. This decision marked a shift from earlier rulings that had protected state sovereignty.
- Printz v. United States (1997): Revitalized the Tenth Amendment. The Court ruled that the federal government couldn't require state officials to conduct background checks for gun purchases, establishing the anti-commandeering doctrine. This principle continues to influence debates on federalism and state autonomy.

Modern Applications and Controversies
The Tenth Amendment remains relevant in current political debates:
- Healthcare: States challenged the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion as federal overreach. The Supreme Court's ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) made the expansion optional for states.2
- Immigration: Sanctuary cities have resisted federal immigration enforcement, citing the anti-commandeering doctrine. Courts have generally upheld cities' right to limit cooperation with federal authorities.
- Marijuana Legislation: Over 30 states have legalized medical or recreational marijuana, conflicting with federal law. The anti-commandeering doctrine supports states' ability to regulate marijuana independently.
- Sports Betting: Murphy v. NCAA (2018) struck down federal prohibitions on sports betting, allowing states to legalize and regulate it.
- Abortion Rights: Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, states have diverged in their approaches to abortion legislation, renewing debates over state versus federal authority.
- Gun Laws: States continue to challenge federal gun regulations and pass their own laws, invoking Tenth Amendment principles.
These ongoing controversies highlight the persistent tension between state sovereignty and federal power in the American federal system.

Federalism and State Sovereignty
Federalism and state sovereignty are critical for the Tenth Amendment. Federalism is the structure of our political system, ensuring a balance of power between national and state governments. The Tenth Amendment proclaims that powers not given to the federal government nor banned for the states belong to the states or the people.
The appeal of federalism lies in its ability to adapt while preserving core principles. State sovereignty means states govern themselves and make laws suited to local communities. The clash between federal and state power is ongoing, with issues like:
- Gun control
- Health care
- Environmental regulations
The supremacy clause in Article VI says federal laws are the "supreme law of the land," but the Tenth Amendment ensures the federal government doesn't overstep. States' rights advocates argue local governments are closer to the people and better at addressing regional concerns.
State sovereignty plays out in areas like education, marijuana legalization, abortion laws, and gun rights. Environmental regulations further illustrate this tug-of-war, with some states implementing stricter standards than federal requirements.1
The Tenth Amendment ensures a dynamic, multi-layered governance structure that can adapt to diverse needs. It's the linchpin in American federalism, ensuring states have a say and power remains balanced.

Impact on Local Governments
The Tenth Amendment doesn't protect local governments from state interference. Cities and counties are at the mercy of their state governments. States can preempt local laws by asserting their authority, and this hierarchical relationship is standard. States create local governments, give them powers, and can take them away.
Many state constitutions include "home rule" provisions, giving cities and counties some autonomy to pass and enforce laws. However, home rule interpretation varies by state. Some state supreme courts have interpreted home rule provisions generously, while others have interpreted them narrowly.
Texas, for example, has preempted local ordinances on issues like plastic bag bans and paid sick leave. The state has no problem overriding local choices that don't align with state priorities.
Despite this, federalism indirectly benefits local governments by establishing decentralized power. Local voices can sometimes assert themselves against state oversight. Local autonomy depends more on state constitution provisions and judicial interpretations than on federal constitutional guarantees.
Cities and counties must navigate this complex legal and political landscape, often relying on:
- State-level advocacy
- Legal challenges
- Coalition building
The ongoing struggle for local control reflects the broader tension of American constitutional governance.2

Conclusion
The Tenth Amendment safeguards state sovereignty, balancing power between federal and state governments. It maintains state autonomy, reminding us that power distribution is essential for preserving liberty and preventing overreach.