AUSTIN, Texas (March 7, 2025) – On Monday, a Texas Senate committee overwhelmingly passed a bill to create a process in state law to end state and local enforcement of some federal actions.
Sen. Phil King filed Senate Bill 707 (SB707). Under the proposed law, the Texas legislature would be empowered to pass a concurrent resolution declaring a “federal directive” unconstitutional and prohibiting a state or local government officer or employee from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of the same.
Federal directives include federal laws, executive orders, and agency rules, policies, orders, or standards. Any federal directive that the legislature finds “infringes on a power or right reserved to the state by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; or prohibits or limits the ability of this state to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of this state; or promote the prosperity of the people of this state” would be subject to such a resolution.
On March 3, the Senate State Affairs Committee reported the bill favorably by a 10-1 vote, moving it forward in the legislative process.
LEGAL BASIS
Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing any federal action.
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 stop federal overreach because most enforcement actions rely on help, support, and leadership from state and local governments.
This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity”
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or regulatory program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five major Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.
Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“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.”
The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.
WHAT’S NEXT
SB707 can now move to the full Senate for further consideration.
- 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