Which case ruled that the federal government cannot compel state officials to administer or enforce a federal regulation?

• A. Gibbons v. Ogden
• B. Printz v. United States
• C. National Federation of Business v. Sebelius
• D. U.S. v. Morrison

Answer: (B)

The main idea tested is the anti-commandeering principle: the federal government cannot force state governments or their officials to administer or enforce federal laws. In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required state and local police to perform background checks for handgun purchases. The Court explained that while Congress can regulate private behavior and set conditions on federal programs, it cannot commandeer state officers to carry out federal tasks. This preserves state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and keeps states from being compelled to enforce federal rules.

Gibbons v. Ogden isn't about forcing states to administer federal programs; it deals with federal authority over interstate commerce and national supremacy. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius centers on the taxation power and the individual mandate, not on compelling state officials to execute federal regulations. U.S. v. Morrison addresses whether Congress can regulate certain non-economic activities under the Commerce Clause. These cases illustrate different aspects of federal power, whereas Printz directly establishes the prohibition on compelling state officials to enforce federal laws.