Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
It is one of the shortest amendments to the U.S. Constitution, yet it is one of the most powerful and fiercely debated. In a single sentence, the 10th Amendment attempts to answer the fundamental question of American governance: who’s in charge?
The text, ratified on December 15, 1791, reads: “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.”
This principle, known as federalism, establishes a system of shared power between the national government and the states. It is the reason the answer to “who’s in charge?” is often, “it’s complicated.”
This constitutional balancing act directly shapes countless aspects of your daily life, from the curriculum taught in your local public school to the speed limit on the highway you drive to work.
The amendment functions as a critical rule for interpreting the Constitution: if a power isn’t specifically given to the federal government, it is assumed to be retained by the states or the people themselves.
Why the Founders Added the 10th Amendment
The 10th Amendment was born from one of the most profound and contentious debates in American history: the battle between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the very nature of the new nation. The amendment is a monument to the deep-seated fear of centralized power that defined the post-Revolutionary era.
Anti-Federalist Fear of Central Power
After breaking away from the tyranny of a king, many Americans were deeply suspicious of creating a new, powerful national government. These thinkers, known as the Anti-Federalists, argued that the Constitution gave far too much power to the federal government at the expense of the states and individual citizens.
They feared the new government would be too distant to represent the average person and would eventually swallow up the authority of state and local governments, leading to a “consolidation of the Union into ‘one great republic’ under an unchecked national government.”
To prevent this, they clamored for a bill of rights that would explicitly protect individual liberties and preserve the power of the states.
The Federalist Counterargument
Conversely, the Federalists, including influential figures like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, believed a strong national government was essential to the nation’s survival after the failure of the weak Articles of Confederation.
They initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Their reasoning was that since the federal government was only granted specific, enumerated powers, it had no authority to infringe on rights like freedom of speech in the first place.
Hamilton worried that listing certain rights would create a “colourable pretext to claim more than were granted,” implying that any right not on the list was unprotected and could be violated.
A Critical Compromise
To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists promised to add a bill of rights once the new government was formed. The 10th Amendment was the capstone of this compromise, designed to “allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted.”
However, its final wording contained a subtle but monumental victory for the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists wanted to add the word “expressly” before “delegated,” which would have confined the federal government only to powers explicitly listed in the Constitution, just as the Articles of Confederation had done.
Congress, led by Madison, deliberately rejected this proposal. This omission was critical, as it left the door open for the federal government to possess “implied powers” – those not explicitly stated but necessary to carry out its duties – a concept that would fuel the expansion of federal authority for centuries to come.
The Three Buckets of Power
The 10th Amendment creates a system where governmental powers are sorted into three main categories. Understanding these “three buckets” is key to understanding federalism.
Delegated Powers (Federal Government)
These are the powers the Constitution specifically grants to the federal government, primarily in Article I, Section 8. This is a finite list of responsibilities intended to address matters of national scope.
Examples include the power to declare war, coin money, regulate commerce between the states, and establish a postal system.
Reserved Powers (State Governments)
These are the powers not given to the federal government, which the 10th Amendment therefore “reserves” to the states or the people. This is a vast and undefined category of powers related to the health, safety, and welfare of a state’s residents, often referred to as a state’s “police powers.”
These are the powers that most directly impact your daily life, such as running elections, creating and operating public schools, issuing licenses (for driving, marriage, or professional practice), and regulating businesses that operate solely within a state’s borders (intrastate commerce).
Concurrent Powers (Shared)
These are powers that both the federal and state governments can exercise at the same time. For example, both your state government and the federal government can levy taxes, borrow money, and establish court systems.
In cases where a state law and a federal law conflict, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause generally dictates that the federal law prevails.
The following table provides a clear breakdown of this division of powers:
| Delegated Powers (Federal Government) | Reserved Powers (State Governments) | Concurrent Powers (Shared) |
|---|---|---|
| • Declare war | • Conduct elections | • Levy and collect taxes |
| • Coin money | • Establish and run schools | • Borrow money |
| • Regulate interstate & foreign commerce | • Regulate intrastate commerce | • Establish courts |
| • Establish a postal system | • Issue licenses (driver’s, marriage, etc.) | • Make and enforce laws |
| • Raise and support armies | • Provide for public health, safety, and morals | • Charter banks and corporations |
| • Conduct foreign affairs | • Establish local governments | • Eminent domain (take property for public use) |
The Supreme Court: The Ever-Shifting Line
The precise line between federal and state authority is not static. It has been the subject of intense legal battles for over 200 years, with the Supreme Court acting as the ultimate referee.
The Court’s interpretation of the 10th Amendment has swung like a pendulum, reflecting the country’s changing needs and the justices’ own judicial philosophies. This reveals a central truth about the amendment: its practical power is not fixed by its text but is defined by the prevailing views of the Supreme Court.
The Rise of Federal Power: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Early in the nation’s history, the Court dealt a major blow to a narrow, states’ rights reading of the 10th Amendment. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court confronted two questions: could Congress create a national bank, and could a state tax it?
Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous court, answered yes to the first and no to the second. He argued that even though the power to create a bank was not explicitly listed in the Constitution, it was an “implied power” that was “necessary and proper” for Congress to carry out its enumerated powers of taxing and spending.
He then declared that Maryland could not tax the bank, famously stating that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” and affirming the supremacy of the federal government.
Marshall specifically pointed out that the 10th Amendment deliberately omitted the word “expressly,” which he argued left the door open for such implied powers and weakened the states’ claim to reserved authority.
The New Deal and the “Truism”: United States v. Darby (1941)
For decades, the 10th Amendment was used to strike down federal laws, including early child labor laws. But during the Great Depression and the New Deal, the Court’s philosophy shifted dramatically to accommodate President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sweeping economic recovery programs.
In the 1941 case United States v. Darby, which upheld the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Court effectively neutralized the 10th Amendment. It declared the amendment was “but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.”
This meant the amendment was not an independent check on federal power; as long as Congress could justify a law under one of its enumerated powers, like the Commerce Clause, the 10th Amendment could not stand in its way.
For the next 40 years, the amendment “essentially disappeared from U.S. Constitutional law.”
The “New Federalism” Revival
Beginning in the 1990s, a more conservative Court began to push back against the expansive view of federal power, reviving the 10th Amendment as a meaningful limit on Congress.
United States v. Lopez (1995): In a landmark decision, the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. For the first time since 1937, the Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause.
The Court found that possessing a gun in a local school zone was not an “economic activity” that had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. This decision was crucial because it signaled that there were limits to federal power and that the 10th Amendment’s reservation of local “police power” to the states was to be taken seriously.
Printz v. United States (1997): Two years later, the Court established the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. It invalidated a key provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers.
The Court ruled that the federal government could not “commandeer” or force state officials to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the federal government could not “impress into its service…the police officers of the 50 States.”
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012): This modern case tested the limits of federal power in a new way. The case concerned the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which required states to expand their Medicaid programs or risk losing all of their federal Medicaid funding.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority on this point, found this to be unconstitutionally coercive. While Congress can use financial incentives to encourage states to adopt federal policies, threatening to revoke a massive existing funding stream – which accounted for over 10% of the average state’s budget – was not persuasion but “a gun to the head” and a form of “economic dragooning” that violated the principles of federalism protected by the 10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment in Your Daily Life
The ongoing tug-of-war between federal and state power defined by the 10th Amendment plays out every day in ways both large and small. While the federal government is constitutionally barred from directly commanding states in many areas, it has developed a powerful alternative: the “power of the purse.”
By attaching conditions to federal funding, Washington can powerfully “encourage” states to adopt its preferred policies, shifting the debate from a legal one about authority to a political one about money and priorities.
Your Child’s Classroom
State and Local Power: The 10th Amendment reserves authority over education to the states. State constitutions require the creation of public school systems, and local school boards are empowered to make critical decisions about curriculum, graduation requirements, and teacher certification.
This is why educational standards and what is taught in a history class can vary significantly from one state to another.
Federal Influence: The federal government’s role is limited but influential. It provides only about 10% of K-12 education funding nationwide. However, it uses this funding as leverage.
To receive federal grants under laws like the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states must comply with federal rules on standardized testing and data reporting. At the same time, ESSA explicitly prohibits the federal government from “mandating, directing, or controlling” a state’s curriculum or instructional content.
Federal power is also asserted through civil rights laws. The 14th Amendment was the basis for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision desegregating schools, and laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandate equal access for all students, backed by federal funding.
Your Driver’s License and the Rules of the Road
State and Local Power: Setting traffic laws and issuing driver’s licenses are classic examples of powers reserved to the states. This explains the wide variation in rules across the country.
Texas has highways with an 85 mph speed limit, while Hawaii’s top speed is much lower. Some states require drivers to yield to moose, while Oregon famously prohibits most drivers from pumping their own gas.
Federal Influence: The federal government doesn’t issue licenses or set speed limits, but it powerfully influences state policies through conditional spending and national standards.
The REAL ID Act of 2005, passed on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses. States are not forced to comply. However, if they don’t, their licenses are not accepted for federal purposes, such as boarding a commercial airplane or entering a federal facility.
After May 7, 2025, residents of non-compliant states will need a passport or other acceptable alternative ID for these activities. This is a prime example of the federal government using persuasion rather than unconstitutional commandeering.
Your Paycheck and the Minimum Wage
Federal Power: Under its power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938, establishing a national minimum wage. The current federal minimum is $7.25 per hour.
State Power: The 10th Amendment allows states to function as “laboratories of democracy,” and many have chosen to set their own minimum wages higher than the federal floor. Currently, 34 states, territories, and districts have minimum wages above $7.25 per hour. Some cities and counties have enacted even higher local minimums.
The Rule: For workers, the law is straightforward: you are entitled to the highest applicable wage, whether it’s federal, state, or local. In states with no minimum wage law (like Louisiana and Mississippi) or a rate below the federal level (like Georgia and Wyoming), the $7.25 federal rate generally applies.
Public Health and Safety
State and Local Power: The authority to protect public health and safety is a core “police power” reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment. This power was on full display during the COVID-19 pandemic, when state governors and local health officials implemented mask mandates, business closures, and stay-at-home orders.
The federal government cannot force a state to enact or repeal such measures. This state authority is supported by nearly 200 years of Supreme Court precedent, starting with Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824.
Federal Influence: The federal government’s role is primarily to provide funding, research, and guidance through agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The President cannot mandate vaccinations nationwide, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to approve or reject vaccines and treatments for use in the U.S. The federal government also has clear authority under the Commerce Clause to take measures to prevent the spread of disease between states and from foreign countries.
Law and Order on Your Street
A Layered System: The 10th Amendment’s principles are clearly visible in the decentralized structure of American law enforcement. There are over 17,900 separate police agencies in the United States, operating at the municipal, county, state, and federal levels.
Distinct Jurisdictions: Each level has a distinct role. Your local city police department handles the vast majority of day-to-day crime, from traffic violations to burglaries.
The county sheriff’s office typically patrols unincorporated areas, runs the county jail, and provides courthouse security. State police or highway patrol focus on enforcing traffic laws on major highways and may investigate crimes that cross county lines.
Federal Jurisdiction: Federal law enforcement agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and U.S. Marshals Service investigate violations of federal law.
Their jurisdiction is limited to federal crimes such as terrorism, interstate drug trafficking, kidnapping, and apprehending federal fugitives. They do not respond to local 911 calls for common crimes.
However, because criminal activity often crosses jurisdictional boundaries, federal, state, and local agencies frequently collaborate on joint task forces to pool resources and expertise.
The Environment Around You
State and Local Power: The regulation of land use is a traditional power reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. This allows states to enact their own environmental protection laws.
Some states, like California, have created regulations for air and water quality that are significantly stricter than federal requirements.
Federal Influence: Congress passes major environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, using its Commerce Clause authority, based on the reasoning that pollution crosses state lines and thus affects interstate commerce.
These federal laws establish a minimum standard, or a “federal floor,” that all states must meet. States remain free to enforce stricter standards if they choose. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets these national standards but often delegates the day-to-day enforcement to state agencies.
This cooperative model can lead to conflict. For example, in New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not force a state to take ownership of low-level radioactive waste, finding it was an unconstitutional “commandeering” of state authority in violation of the 10th Amendment.
Similar federalism arguments are central to modern debates over federal climate policies, such as the Clean Power Plan, with states arguing the EPA is intruding on their traditional power to regulate their own energy generation and grids.
The Modern Balance
The 10th Amendment continues to shape American governance in profound ways. Its core principle – that powers not explicitly given to the federal government remain with the states or the people – creates an ongoing tension between national unity and local control.
This tension plays out differently depending on the issue and the political climate. Sometimes states push for more federal involvement, as with disaster relief or economic support. Other times, they resist federal mandates, particularly when those mandates conflict with local values or priorities.
The amendment’s practical effect depends heavily on Supreme Court interpretation, which has varied dramatically over time. The Court’s current approach generally respects state sovereignty while allowing federal authority in areas of clear national concern.
This balance affects millions of daily decisions across America – from what children learn in school to how fast you can drive, from the minimum wage you earn to the environmental standards in your community. The 10th Amendment ensures that many of these decisions remain close to home, where citizens can more directly influence the outcomes.
At the same time, the amendment’s flexibility allows for national responses to national problems. The federal government’s power of the purse provides a middle path between direct commandeering (which is often unconstitutional) and complete state autonomy (which can lead to inconsistent national policies).
This system of federalism, enshrined in 27 words, continues to define the American experiment in self-governance. It remains one of the Constitution’s most practical amendments, shaping the daily lives of Americans in ways both seen and unseen, from the classroom to the courtroom, from the highway to the home.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
