>U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 1997 case that the federal government can't “dragoon” state officers into carrying out federal law. He granted requests from Colorado and Denver officials to dismiss the lawsuit, concluding that “Colorado and Denver have the right to refuse to expend their resources to implement a federal regulatory program.”
Ooh, 'dragoon'. I like 'gang press'. You'd think a former state attorney general would know this. But here we are...again.
231
bros402Apr 1, 2026
+22
that just means that SCOTUS needs to overturn more precedent. You know, that stuff that Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett said they wouldn't overturn
22
Toxaplume045Apr 1, 2026
+195
Good ruling. It's been ruled before that the feds can't force state law enforcement to enforce federal laws. Otherwise it would be heavily abused and exploited by the feds and waste a f*** ton of state taxpayer dollars.
195
Infamous-Sky-1874Apr 1, 2026
+56
It was the whole reason why the concept of sanctuary cities even came into existence. INS, and later ICE, would drag their feet in coming to pick up individuals who had been pulled over for something as minor as a busted taillight.
56
AudibleNodApr 1, 2026
+70
Conservatives!
This is an unfunded mandate. Where's the outrage?
70
AlwayssunnyinarizonaApr 1, 2026
+34
State's rights!
34
outerproductApr 1, 2026
+35
State's rights, except when conservatives don't like it.
35
plantangApr 1, 2026
+11
"It was actually just the one right that we wanted."
11
Moderate-ExtremismApr 1, 2026
+7
*still want
7
BrothelWafflesApr 1, 2026
+5
I wonder how many conservatives that are mad about this are totally fine with legalized cannabis. Probably all of them.
5
BagOfFerrets34Apr 1, 2026
+43
Anti-commandeering doctrine doing some heavy lifting again. The feds can make the laws, but they can’t turn states into unpaid interns. If more people actually read the 10th Amendment, this would be a lot less “surprising.”
43
Deranged40Apr 1, 2026
+38
> If more people actually read the 10th Amendment, this would be a lot less “surprising.”
At this point, the most surprising news we see is when the constitution and its amendments are actually followed by this administration.
And this is a perfect example of the administration losing a battle where they directly decided to ignore an amendment (the 10th, as you pointed out) in its entirety.
38
bluemitersawApr 1, 2026
+3
Isn't that the one Scalia called an ink blot and said it's meaningless???
3
AmyWilliamseApr 1, 2026
+6
Sounds like this one is heading to appeals anyway.
6
sciguyC0Apr 1, 2026
+3
Got curious about the cited 1997 case and found it's likely [Printz v United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States). Which should put conservatives in a tailspin since that ruled state/local agencies are not required to enforce federal gun regulation. If the feds want regulation (for guns, immigration, whatever) under federal law, they're on the hook to enforce it themselves. States have no obligation to take on that responsibility when there's no overlap with state law. Especially if there's no federal money coming their way for it, which seems to usually be the case.
17 Comments