Printz v. United States
1997 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Printz v. United States?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
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.
Quick Facts Printz v. United States, Argued December 3, 1996 Decided June 27, 1997 ...
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 |
Close