SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (Jan. 8, 2024) – A bill filed in the Utah Senate would create a process to end enforcement of some federal actions in the state and set the stage to nullify them in practice and effect.

Sen. Scott Sandall filed Senate Bill 57 (SB57). Under the proposed law, the Utah legislature would have the authority to pass a concurrent resolution prohibiting a state or local government officer from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of a federal directive within the state if the legislature determines the federal directive “violates the principles of state sovereignty.”

SB57 defines “federal directive” as:

  • a statute passed by the United States Congress
  • an executive order by the president of the United States
  • a rule or regulation adopted by a federal agency;

A federal directive would “violate the principles of state sovereignty “if the federal directive restricts or infringes upon a power or a right reserved to the state by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or the state’s rights or interests to provide for the health, safety, and welfare and promote the prosperity of the state’s inhabitants,” as determined by the state legislature.


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. This legislation could effectively end enforcement of any federal laws deemed to violate the Constitution.

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.”


The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing or implementing certain federal acts rest 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 – whether constitutional or not. 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.”

No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.


SB57 will be officially introduced and referred to a Senate committee when the legislature convenes on Jan. 16. It will need to get a committee hearing and then pass the committee by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey