JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Feb. 13, 2020) – A bill introduced in the Missouri House would set the stage to end enforcement of some rules and regulations issued by federal agencies, nullifying them in effect in the state.

Rep. Mike Moon (R- Ash Grove) introduced House Bill 2339 (HB2339) on Jan. 30. The legislation would prohibit all state departments and agencies from
enforcing any rule or regulation promulgated by a federal agency until the rule has first been approved by the Missouri General Assembly. The bill also creates a process for reviewing all current federal agency rules and regulations.

“Any existing rule or regulation promulgated before August 28, 2020, by any department or agency of this state in conjunction with the enforcement of any rule or regulation promulgated by any federal agency that is in force and effect after August 28, 2020, shall be subject to review by the committee on administrative rules, established under section 536.037. The committee shall determine whether such rule or regulation shall continue to be enforced and shall make a recommendation thereof to the general assembly. The general assembly shall review all rules and regulations referred to it by the committee and shall approve or disapprove the continued enforcement of such rules or regulations.”

Practically speaking, under the proposed law, state agencies would no longer take action to implement or enforce federal agency rules or regulations by default. It would require an act of the legislature before the state cooperated with rules issued by agencies like the EPA, FDA and ATF. The state would not attempt to block the rules or regulations, but would simply refuse to take any action to implement or enforce them at the state level until the legislature gives approval. This would set the stage to nullify such federal actions in effect.


Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”


State refusal to enforce or implement certain federal acts rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”


Missouri Speaker of the House Elijah Haahr (R-Springfield) first needs to assign HB2339 to a committee. From there, it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey

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.