Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution apply to state sovereignty and federal funding?
Executive summary
The Tenth Amendment declares that powers not delegated to the federal government are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” a principle courts and scholars treat as a statement of federalism rather than a self-executing limitation on federal power [1] [2]. In practice, the Supreme Court has both limited and accepted federal actions: it forbids “commandeering” state governments (New York v. United States; Printz) and recognizes a narrow set of protected state sovereignty interests, but it also permits Congress to regulate many activities and to condition federal funds—so long as the conditions are not coercive or imposed on states “as States” in ways that violate sovereignty [3] [4] [5].
1. The text is short but its legal life is long
The Tenth Amendment’s plain language—reserving non-delegated powers to the states or people—looks simple on its face, and some scholars call it largely a truism that restates the federal system—but the Supreme Court and commentators have repeatedly built doctrine around it to police the boundary between federal power and state sovereignty [1] [6] [2]. That tension drives most modern disputes: is the Amendment merely a reminder of enumeration, or does it create enforceable limits on Congress? The literature and case law show both views in play [1] [6].
2. Commandeering is a bright-line constraint
The Court has clearly held that Congress cannot “commandeer” state legislatures or executive officers to implement federal policy—meaning the federal government cannot force states to enact laws or require state officials to execute federal tasks—which is one of the clearest constitutional protections labeled under the Tenth Amendment [4] [5]. Cases such as New York v. United States and Printz exemplify that limit and are frequently cited by state sovereignty advocates and model-state resolutions that assert Tenth Amendment claims [4] [7].
3. Regulation of activities vs. regulation “as States”
The Court distinguishes between laws that regulate private actors generally and laws that regulate states in their sovereign capacity. Tenth Amendment protections apply when Congress is regulating “States as States,” but not when it is regulating individuals or private businesses—even when those activities touch state functions [5] [3]. This distinction means many federal statutes that affect state-run programs or employees have been upheld when they target conduct rather than compel state governments to act in their sovereign role [5] [3].
4. Federal funding: conditioning power with limits
Congress routinely uses federal grants to influence state policy. The Supreme Court accepts conditional federal funding as a legitimate exercise of federal power, but it draws a line at conditions that are impermissibly coercive or that force states to surrender sovereignty—famously striking down some “take title” or coercive incentives while upholding less coercive conditions [8] [3]. In short, accepting federal funds generally counts as voluntary, and Tenth Amendment protections do not insulate states from obligations they “voluntarily assumed as a condition of federal funding” [5] [3].
5. Doctrine is elastic; outcomes depend on framing
Since the 1970s the Court has sometimes invoked the Tenth Amendment to protect particular core sovereign functions—wages for state employees is one historically cited example—yet other decisions have declined to turn the Amendment into a broad judicial shield against federal regulation [3] [5]. Some commentators and state-level actors press for stronger Tenth Amendment enforcement—as seen in model resolutions and state bills asserting presumptive state jurisdiction—while other legal authorities emphasize political checks through the states’ role in federal lawmaking rather than judicially enforced limits [7] [9].
6. Practical takeaway for states, federal officials, and observers
For state officials: asserting the Tenth Amendment is most effective where federal action would commandeer state legislative or executive processes or intrude on a small set of recognized sovereign functions—challenging conditions that look coercive has precedent [4] [3]. For federal policymakers: conditioning funds or regulating private conduct remains a durable route to achieve national objectives so long as courts do not find the conditions unconstitutionally coercive or targeted at state sovereignty itself [8] [5]. For citizens and journalists: understand that claims of “Tenth Amendment violations” are contested and hinge on doctrinal distinctions—whether the federal measure regulates private actors, coerces states via funding, or commands state officials [5] [4].
Limitations: available sources do not provide a single, definitive rulebook; instead they record a century of case law and commentary that creates a nuanced, sometimes contradictory picture of how the Tenth Amendment operates in disputes over state sovereignty and federal funding [2] [6].