PHOENIX, Ariz. (Feb. 26, 2025) – Today, the Arizona House passed a bill that would halt state and local enforcement of a number of long-standing EPA rules and regulations.
Rep. Lisa Fink and two cosponsors filed House Bill 2059 (HB2059). The proposed law would ban the state, its agencies, its political subdivisions, and their employees from using “any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate” with specified “federal actions or programs” regulating air, water, and natural resources.
The federal actions and programs that would no longer be enforced by the state include three specific provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1963, regulation of waters covered by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, energy efficiency standards for new construction of housing authorized by the Energy Independence and Security act of 2007, The Mexican wolf reintroduction program pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and The incidental take permit program pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
On Feb. 26, the House passed HB2059 by a 32-27 vote.
The proposed law would not prohibit state agencies and their employees from complying with a court order.
HB2059 also addresses long-standing agency rule-making under the Chevron Doctrine, as it stipulates that in any proceedings to enforce compliance with the specified federal laws and EPA regulations, “the court shall decide all questions of law and questions of fact…without deference to any previous determination that may have been made on the question by a federal agency.”
Any state employee or agent found to have violated the proposed law would be subject to a $3,000 civil penalty on the first offense. Political subdivisions or state agencies in violation of the law would lose state funding.
EFFECTIVE
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations, and acts – including EPA rules and regulations. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down EPA rules and regulations because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion relating to federal gun control, he noted that a single state taking similar steps would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
LEGAL BASIS
The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing EPA rules and regulations 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. A state could refuse to provide personnel or resources to the federal government just because it is Tuesday and it’s snowing.
WHAT’S NEXT
HB2059 will move to the Senate for further consideration. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
- To the Governor: Kentucky Bill Would Reinstate Vetoed Sales Tax Exemption on Gold and Silver - March 17, 2025
- Arkansas House Committee Advances Bill to Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases - March 14, 2025
- To the Governor: Idaho Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender - March 13, 2025