HELENA, Mont. (Feb. 18, 2015) – On Saturday, the Montana House passed a bill that would shine light on the resources the state devotes to implementing federal regulations and the corresponding mandates placed upon it.

Introduced by Rep. Bill Harris (R-29), House Bill 315 (HB315) states plainly the intent of the legislature is that “any implementation of federal policies in and for Montana by federal executive branch agencies that is contrary to the United States constitution and fundamental notions of federalism and self-determination must be identified, countered, and resisted.” [emphasis added]

The bill revises the current Montana Federal Mandates Act by creating a series of studies and reports on the effects of federal mandates on the state of Montana. It reads, in part:

Prior to recommending to the legislature a budget for a state agency that is charged with implementing federal mandates, the governor shall require that the state agency provide information regarding any monetary savings for the state and any reduction in regulatory burdens on local governments and on the public that could be or have been achieved through the development of state policies that meet the intent of applicable federal statutes but do not necessarily follow all applicable federal regulations, guidelines, or policies. The state agency shall also provide advice to the governor regarding any changes in state statutes that are necessary to provide the state agency the authority to implement state policies in a way that will create additional savings or greater reductions in regulatory burdens.

The legislature is also empowered to conduct studies and reviews of the effects of federal programs:

In exercising its authority as an equal branch of state government, the legislature may conduct any legal review or fiscal analysis that it considers necessary to effect the purpose and intent of this part. The governor, the director or chief executive officer of any agency within the executive branch, or any officer listed in Article VI, section 1, of the Montana constitution shall, upon request by the legislature, immediately provide any information prepared, compiled, developed, detailed, described, referenced, analyzed, reported, or in any other manner considered in conjunction with this part.

The vote on Saturday was 58-41.

At the very least, this would slow down the process of the Montana state government complying with federal mandates, and provide increased transparency when it is being attempted.

Reporting of this magnitude would uncover just how much the federal government relies on states like Montana to enforce its laws. It would shine the brightest light on the nature of federal/state partnerships to date and illuminate just how far the fed’s tentacles reach into Montana, from drug and gun enforcement, to environmental regulations. This kind of reporting would help the Montana legislature find ways to reduce the federal burden placed upon them.

HB315 also adds additional credibility and recognition to the idea of anti-commandeering, which in spite of the Governor seemingly unaware of it, is an undeniably legal and valid tenet of the American republic.


The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states cannot be required to expend resources or manpower to help the federal government carry out its acts or programs. This legal principle rests primarily on four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), Justice Joseph Story held that the federal government could not force states to implement or carry out the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. He said that it was a federal law, and the federal government ultimately had to enforce it.

The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or instrusted to them by the Constitution.

Other key cases include New York v. United States (1992), Printz v. United States (1997), and Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).

Noted Constitutional scholar Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law said, “State governments are free to refrain from cooperating with federal authorities if they so choose. In general, states cannot attack federal operations, but that’s not the same as refusing to help.”

The people of Montana, and other states as well, are long overdue for this kind of initiative.  Keeping in pursuance with federalism, a bill such as this would be a positive step towards increased state sovereignty.


For Montana: Contact your state senators and urge them to support HB315. You can find their information HERE.

For other states: Contact your state legislators and urge them to propose and/or support similar measures to Montana HB315. You can find their information HERE.

The 10th Amendment

“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.”



Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles


Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog


State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report


Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty


Maharrey Minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today


Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!



The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment



Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.