|date = October 29, 2002
|date = October 29, 2002
|url= http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/conant.htm}}</ref> The US Supreme Court has held that commandeering violates principles designed to prevent either the state or federal governments from becoming too powerful.<ref>{{cite court |litigants = New York v. United States | vol=505 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=144 | date=1992}}</ref><ref>{{cite court | litigants=Printz v. United States | vol=521 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=898 | date=1997}}</ref>
|url= http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/conant.htm}}</ref> The US Supreme Court has held that commandeering violates principles designed to prevent either the state or federal governments from becoming too powerful.<ref>{{cite court |litigants = New York v. United States | vol=505 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=144 | date=1992}}</ref><ref>{{cite court | litigants=Printz v. United States | vol=521 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=898 | date=1997}}</ref>
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.”<ref>{{cite court | litigants=Printz v. United States | vol=521 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=898 | pinpoint=935 | date=1997}}</ref> States derive their protection from commandeering from the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment]].<ref name=”clr130321″/>
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.”<ref>{{cite court | litigants=Printz v. United States | vol=521 | reporter=U.S. | opinion=898 | pinpoint=935 | date=1997}}</ref> States derive their protection from commandeering from the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment]].<ref name=”clr130321″/
The Congress may enact federal law that supersedes or ”[[Federal preemption|preempts]]” state law. The distinction between ”commandeering” and ”preemption” was at issue in ”[[Murphy v. NCAA]]”, a case involving sports betting.<ref name=”cnn171204″>{{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}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
The Congress may enact federal law that supersedes or ”[[Federal preemption|preempts]]” state law. The distinction between ”commandeering” and ”preemption” was at issue in ”[[Murphy v. NCAA]]”, a case involving sports betting.<ref name=”cnn171204″>{{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}}</ref><ref>{{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}}</ref>
|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}}</ref>
In the case of [[Legality of cannabis|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”.<ref name=”clr130321″>{{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}}</ref> Challenges to state-level marijuana legalizations in federal court have been unsuccessful for this reason.<ref>{{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}}</ref>
In the case of [[Legality of cannabis|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”.<ref name=”clr130321″>{{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}}</ref> Challenges to state-level marijuana legalizations in federal court have been unsuccessful for this reason.<ref>{{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}}</ref>
==See also==
==See also==
*[[Federalism in the United States]]
*[[Federalism in the United States]]
Legal terminology
Commandeering is an act of appropriation by the military or police whereby they take possession of the property of a member of the public.
In the United States
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.[1] The US Supreme Court has held that commandeering violates principles designed to prevent either the state or federal governments from becoming too powerful.[2][3]
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.”[4] States derive their protection from commandeering from the Tenth Amendment.[5][6]
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.[7] Challenges to state-level marijuana legalizations in federal court have been unsuccessful for this reason.[8]
In the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, there is no law that authorises police to commandeer vehicles; however, they may ask drivers to help them when pursuing suspects or responding to urgent calls if no suitable vehicles are available. A parliamentary debate on 31 May 1934 mentions that the Metropolitan Police Service engaged in this practice some 35 times over the preceding year, and reimbursed drivers for repair costs in 3 cases where private vehicles sustained damage while under police use.[9]
See also
References
- ^ Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. October 29, 2002).
- ^ New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
- ^ Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
- ^ Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).
- ^ de Vogue, Ariane (4 December 2017). “Chris Christie goes to the Supreme Court on sports betting”. CNN. Retrieved 4 December 2017. Cite error: Unknown parameter “from” in
<ref>tag; supported parameters are dir, follow, group, name (see the help page). - ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (4 December 2017). “Chris Christie’s Big Gamble: The Supreme Court appears poised to let every state authorize sports betting”. Slate.
- ^ Schwartz, Davis (March 21, 2013). “High Federalism: Marijuana Legalization and the Limits of Federal Power to Regulate States”. Cardozo Law Review. 35 (567). SSRN 2237618.
- ^ “U.S. Supreme Court Rejects States’ Challenge to Colorado Marijuana Law”. Governing. March 21, 2016.
- ^ “Private Motor Cars (Police Use) – Hansard – UK Parliament”. hansard.parliament.uk. Retrieved 2025-10-08.
External links
