Governmental Authority: Police Power, Inherent Powers

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The United States operates under a system of federalism, dividing governmental authority between the national (federal) government and individual state governments. This division is further refined by the separation of powers within each level, typically into legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The U.S. Constitution outlines certain powers granted to the federal government (enumerated powers), from which other powers are logically derived (implied powers). Beyond these, governments possess powers by virtue of their existence and sovereignty—inherent powers—and states have powers reserved to them, notably police power.

Introducing Police Power and Inherent Powers

Two significant categories of governmental authority are “police power” and “inherent powers.”

Police power refers to the authority of state governments to enact laws and regulations to protect and promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. This is distinct from the common understanding of “police” as law enforcement officers; rather, it’s a fundamental governing capacity.

Inherent powers are powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution but deemed essential for the government to function as a sovereign entity. These powers are often associated with the federal government’s ability to manage national affairs, particularly in interactions with other nations, and for each branch to perform its core constitutional duties.

Understanding Police Power

What Is Police Power?

Police power is the inherent authority of state governments to enact laws and regulations protecting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their citizens. This power isn’t limited to police officers’ activities; it encompasses the broad capacity of a state to govern within its jurisdiction.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Berman v. Parker (1954), affirmed the breadth of this power, noting that public welfare is “broad and inclusive,” encompassing aesthetic and spiritual values alongside physical and monetary ones.

This power is rooted in legal tradition, predating the U.S. Constitution, and is justified by two Latin principles: “use that which is yours so as not to injure others” and “the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.”

Police power manifests in numerous ways:

• Public Health: States implement measures like mandatory vaccination programs, as upheld in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). Other examples include quarantine laws, restaurant inspections, and sanitation rules.
• Public Safety: This includes traffic laws, building codes, fire codes, and regulations concerning firearms. States also define and prosecute criminal offenses under police power.
• Public Morals: Historically, police power regulated activities deemed contrary to public morality, including prohibitions on alcohol sales, as seen in Mugler v. Kansas (1887), and regulations on gambling and obscenity. While the scope of “public morals” has evolved with changing societal norms, it remains a recognized basis for state regulation.
• General Welfare: This broad category includes zoning ordinances, validated in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926), business licensing requirements, environmental protection laws, consumer protection laws, and workplace safety regulations.

Constitutional Roots of Police Power

The primary constitutional foundation for state police power is the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Police power is the quintessential example of these “reserved powers.” Unlike the federal government, which possesses only powers granted by the Constitution, state governments retain broad authority to govern unless the Constitution specifically delegates that power to the federal government or prohibits states from exercising it.

Police power is considered an “inherent” attribute of state sovereignty. States didn’t derive this power from the federal Constitution; they possessed it prior to the Constitution’s formation and retained it thereafter.

How Far Can Police Power Go?

States possess extensive regulatory authority under police power, enabling them to address a vast array of activities to achieve public good objectives.

A critical distinction exists between police power and eminent domain. Generally, when a state regulates property under police power, it’s not required to compensate the property owner, even if the regulation diminishes the property’s value. This contrasts with eminent domain, where government physically takes private property for public use and must pay “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment.

However, this distinction isn’t absolute. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922), the Supreme Court recognized that if a regulation goes “too far” and effectively deprives an owner of all economically viable use of their property, it may be considered a “regulatory taking” requiring compensation. This “too far” threshold remains a significant area of legal debate.

Limitations on Police Power

While broad, state police power isn’t unlimited. The most significant constraints come from the U.S. Constitution itself:

The Fourteenth Amendment:

• Due Process Clause: Has two aspects:
  • Substantive Due Process: Requires that police power regulations must be rational, not arbitrary, and serve a legitimate state interest. Historically, the Supreme Court used this to strike down economic regulations, as in Lochner v. New York (1905). Now, economic regulations need only pass a “rational basis test,” meaning they must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.
  • Procedural Due Process: Requires states to follow fair procedures when their actions deprive someone of “life, liberty, or property.” This typically includes providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• Equal Protection Clause: Mandates that state laws be applied equally to all persons in similar circumstances. It prohibits arbitrary classifications or discrimination based on suspect criteria (like race) unless there’s a compelling government interest and the law is narrowly tailored.

Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment, applied via the Fourteenth Amendment): If a police power regulation denies a property owner all economically viable use of their land, it can be considered a “taking” requiring “just compensation.” Key cases include Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978), which established a multi-factor balancing test.

Other Constitutional Limits:

• Commerce Clause: State police power regulations must not place an “undue burden” on interstate commerce.
• First Amendment Rights: Police power cannot unjustifiably infringe upon fundamental rights like freedom of speech, press, or religion.

Federal “Police-Like” Powers

The federal government doesn’t possess a general police power like the states. Its powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution and those implied as necessary to carry out enumerated powers.

However, the federal government can enact laws that achieve similar regulatory objectives by linking legislation to constitutionally granted powers:

• The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3): Congress’s power to regulate commerce has been interpreted broadly, allowing federal intervention in activities with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. This enables federal laws on environmental protection, workplace safety, civil rights, and food and drug safety.
• The Taxing and Spending Power (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1): This allows Congress to raise revenue and spend it to promote general welfare, often attaching conditions to federal funds granted to states.
• The Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18): This gives Congress power to enact laws reasonably related to implementing its enumerated powers.

The Supreme Court has sought to limit these federal powers to preserve states’ traditional police power. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court struck down the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, emphasizing that the Constitution “withhold[s] from Congress a plenary police power.” In United States v. Morrison (2000), the Court invalidated part of the Violence Against Women Act, stating that suppression of violent crime is an example of “the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States.”

Understanding Inherent Powers

What Are Inherent Powers?

Inherent powers are those a government possesses simply because it’s a government and a sovereign entity. These powers enable it to perform essential functions even if they’re not spelled out in the Constitution.

The justification for inherent powers comes from several sources:

• Nature of Sovereignty: Certain powers are deemed necessary for any sovereign state to function internationally and manage its affairs.
• Historical Transfer (especially for foreign affairs): Justice George Sutherland argued in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) that powers related to external sovereignty passed directly from Great Britain to the United States as a unified nation upon independence.
• Constitutional Vesting Clauses: The clauses that “vest” power in each branch of government are seen as sources of inherent authority. For the President, Article II’s declaration that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President” is sometimes interpreted as a grant of inherent powers.

The concept of “sovereignty” is central to inherent powers, but its application varies depending on context. For federal foreign affairs, it implies broad authority derived from the nation’s international status. For federal branches internally, it suggests powers indispensable for their institutional operation.

Inherent Powers of the Federal Government

Inherent powers are most prominently discussed in relation to the three branches of the federal government:

Executive Branch (The President):

• Foreign Relations: This includes authority to negotiate treaties, recognize foreign governments, appoint and receive ambassadors, and serve as the nation’s chief diplomat.
• National Emergencies: Presidents have historically claimed inherent powers to act during crises, although these powers are subject to constitutional limitations and congressional oversight. Examples include Abraham Lincoln’s Civil War actions and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s responses to the Great Depression and World War II.
• Acquiring Territory: The power to acquire new territory, whether by treaty or conquest, has been recognized as an inherent power of the national government.
• Controlling Immigration: The authority to control borders, determine who may enter, and regulate immigration is considered a fundamental power of national sovereignty, established in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889).

Legislative Branch (Congress):

• Power to Investigate: Congress possesses an inherent power to conduct investigations and compel information production, deemed essential for effective legislation and oversight.
• Contempt Power: Congress has inherent authority to punish individuals for contempt, such as refusing to testify or produce documents.

Judicial Branch (Federal Courts):

• Managing Court Proceedings: Federal courts possess inherent powers necessary to conduct business, manage dockets, and ensure orderly administration of justice.
• Issuing Sanctions and Contempt of Court: Courts have inherent power to enforce orders and maintain decorum, including holding parties in contempt for disobedience or misconduct.
• Issuing and Vacating Judgments: The power to enter judgments and, under certain circumstances, modify them is also considered an inherent judicial power.

Limitations on Federal Inherent Powers

While inherent powers aren’t explicitly detailed in the Constitution, they’re not unlimited:

• Constitutional Supremacy: All governmental powers must conform to the Constitution and cannot violate constitutional prohibitions or infringe upon individual rights.
• Separation of Powers: One branch cannot usurp another’s core functions. The landmark case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) illustrates this limitation. During the Korean War, President Truman ordered seizure of steel mills to prevent a strike, claiming inherent executive power to act in a national emergency. The Supreme Court ruled he had overstepped his authority. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion proposed a framework for analyzing presidential power:
  1. When the President acts with congressional authorization, his authority is at its maximum.
  2. When the President acts without either a grant or denial of authority (“zone of twilight”), he relies on independent powers.
  3. When the President takes measures incompatible with Congress’s will, his power is “at its lowest ebb.”
• Express Constitutional Provisions or Statutes: Inherent powers generally cannot contravene an express constitutional provision or valid federal statute.
• Judicial Review: The judiciary can review the exercise of inherent powers to ensure they align with constitutional principles.

State Inherent Powers

The discussion of inherent powers at the state level presents a somewhat different landscape:

• Police Power as an Inherent Attribute of State Sovereignty: As discussed earlier, police power is itself widely described as an inherent attribute of state sovereignty, reserved under the Tenth Amendment.
• Other Inherent State Functions: States also possess other inherent powers, including eminent domain, taxation, escheat (reversion of property to the state when someone dies without heirs), and the public trust doctrine.
• Distinction from Federal “Inherent Powers”: While state police power is “inherent” in nature, the discourse surrounding “inherent powers” as a distinct category is most prominently focused on the federal government.

Police Power vs. Inherent Powers: Key Differences

Understanding the distinctions between state police power and federal inherent powers is crucial for grasping American federalism and how governmental authority is justified and exercised.

Primary Locus of Authority

• Police Power: Overwhelmingly vested in and exercised by state governments. Local governments also exercise police power, but this authority is typically delegated by their respective states.
• Inherent Powers: While states possess attributes inherent to their sovereignty (police power being a prime example), the term “inherent powers” as a distinct category is most prominently discussed in the context of the federal government.

Foundational Basis

• Police Power: Based on the principle of reserved powers in the Tenth Amendment. These powers weren’t delegated to the federal government and thus remain with the states.
• Inherent Powers (Federal): The basis is more multifaceted. Some powers, particularly those related to foreign affairs, are justified by national sovereignty itself. Others derive from functional necessity—they’re essential for federal branches to perform their constitutional roles.

Scope and Purpose

• Police Power: Primarily focused on internal, domestic regulation within a state’s boundaries to protect and promote health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
• Inherent Powers (Federal): Often have a broader, sometimes external or structural, focus:
  • External Sovereignty: Conducting foreign policy, making treaties, recognizing foreign governments
  • National Security: Responding to emergencies and defending the government
  • Functional Integrity: Ensuring each branch can operate effectively

The difference in the arena of sovereignty is notable: state police power exercises sovereignty for internal governance, while federal inherent powers often concern sovereignty among nations or ensuring the national government’s functional capacity.

Table: Police Power vs. Federal Inherent Powers at a Glance

How These Powers Affect Citizens

Governmental powers have direct and tangible consequences for individuals. Understanding these impacts helps appreciate the balance between public needs and personal freedoms.

Police Power in Daily Life

State and local police power regulations are perhaps the most pervasive form of governmental authority citizens encounter. These rules shape countless aspects of daily existence:

• Ubiquitous Regulations: Speed limits, health codes for restaurants, building codes, professional licensing requirements, waste disposal regulations, smoking prohibitions, and zoning laws all stem from the state’s police power.
• Enforcement and Individual Rights: Enforcement directly impacts individual liberty and property. A police officer conducting a traffic stop, a health inspector fining a restaurant, or a state board suspending a professional’s license are all applications of this authority.
• Procedural Due Process: When a state, exercising police power, deprives someone of a significant “life, liberty, or property” interest, the Fourteenth Amendment requires fair procedures. The core requirements generally include:
  • Notice of the proposed action
  • Opportunity to be heard
  • Impartial decision-maker
  • Right to present evidence and witnesses
  • Right to confront adverse witnesses
  • Decision based on evidence
  • Right to counsel
  • Record and written findings
  The specific procedures required in any situation are determined by the Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) balancing test, which weighs three factors:
  1. The private interest affected
  2. The risk of erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards
  3. The government’s interest, including fiscal and administrative burdens

Inherent Powers and the Individual

While perhaps less directly visible than state police power, federal inherent powers also profoundly impact individuals’ lives:

• Foreign Relations and Their Domestic Impact:
  • Treaties: International agreements can cover human rights, extradition, trade, taxation, and intellectual property, affecting individuals in various ways.
  • Recognition of Foreign Governments: This can have significant legal consequences for property claims, travel, and access to U.S. courts.
• National Emergencies and Civil Liberties: Exercise of inherent powers during crises can curtail individual liberties and property rights:
  • Asset Freezes: Presidents have used emergency powers to freeze assets of individuals and organizations deemed threats to national security.
  • Travel Restrictions: In emergencies, the government may restrict international travel or entry into the United States.
  • Surveillance: National emergencies have been invoked to justify expanded governmental surveillance.
• Immigration Control: The federal power to control immigration has profound consequences for millions of non-citizens and their families, as well as for U.S. citizens with ties to them.

Balancing Authority with Accountability

While both police power and inherent powers grant governments significant authority, they’re not absolute. The American constitutional system includes checks and balances to prevent power abuse and protect individual rights. The judiciary plays a vital role by interpreting these powers’ scope and ensuring they’re exercised within constitutional boundaries.

An informed citizenry is crucial for maintaining this balance. Understanding the nature of police power and inherent powers—their justifications, reach, and limitations—empowers individuals to participate more effectively in civic discourse, hold governments accountable, and advocate for a society that appropriately balances public needs with fundamental freedoms.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.