Printz v. United States
| Printz v. United States | |
|---|---|
| Argued December 3, 1996 Decided June 27, 1997 | |
| Full case name | Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, Petitioner 95-1478 v. United States; Richard Mack, Petitioner 95-1503 v. United States |
| Citations | 521 U.S. 898 (more) 117 S. Ct. 2365; 138 L. Ed. 2d 914; 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4044; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5096; 97 Daily Journal DAR 8213; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 224 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | declaring unconstitutional, 854 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Mont. 1994), same, 856 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Ariz. 1994), reversing, 66 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1995). |
| Holding | |
| The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's interim provision commanding the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Dissent | Souter |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. X; U.S. Const. amend. II; Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 | |
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.