High Court bolster state's rights.

• Author: Savage, David
• Position: US Supreme Court

The Supreme Court seems to be moving away from the position that congressional power is limitless, and is resisting encroachment on state prerogatives.

When the justices of the Supreme Court recessed for the summer and left Washington, President Clinton and the members of Congress were probably delighted to see them go. In a series of bold rulings, the third branch of government had struck down three popular new federal laws that had been championed by Clinton. The justices also had ruled unanimously that the "individual who happens to be the president" has no immunity from standing trial in this year's most famous case of alleged sexual harassment.

But the high court's term also featured one consistent winner: the states. In decision after decision, the justices sided with the states. They shielded state officials from federal intrusions. They threw out lawsuits targeted at the states. And they upheld ground-breaking state laws, such as those designed to lock up "sexual predators" after they have served their prison terms. Federalism has been a regular theme of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, but it was never more apparent than this year.

"The Constitution established a system of 'dual sovereignty,' which protects the states from federal meddling," said Justice Antonin Scalia on June 27, the final day of term. "The 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...Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system."

Scalia spoke for the 5-4 majority that invalidated part of the Brady Act. The federal measure, designed to prevent felons, fugitives and the mentally ill from buying handguns, requires a five-day waiting period to allow a background check of the potential buyer. By Nov. 30, 1998, the federal government is supposed to have a "national instant background check system" up and running. Until then, states and local sheriffs are obliged to do the checks on their own. At last count, 27 states had laws on the books that provided for criminal-record checks through state agencies. The Supreme Court's decision should have no impact in those states.

ASK YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF

However, other states such as Montana and Arizona depend on local law enforcement officials. The Brady Act says they "shall make a reasonable effort" during the five-day waiting period to check to see whether a prospective handgun buyer has a criminal record.

Supported by the National Rifle Association, Jay Printz, the sheriff of Ravalli County, Mont., challenged this requirement as unconstitutional, and won the high court ruling invalidating the provision in Printz vs. United States. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that the ruling is by no means the end of the Brady Act. Most...