PHOENIX, Ariz. (Jan. 14, 2025) – Legislation introduced in the Arizona House could strike a blow to federal overreach by halting state and local enforcement of certain EPA rules and regulations.

Rep. Lisa Fink and two cosponsors filed House Bill 2059 (HB2059). The proposed law would ban the state, all of its political subdivisions, and their employees from “knowingly and willingly participating in any way in the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to coal, oil, gas, timber or other extractive resources” if it isn’t mirrored in state law.

It would also prohibit the use of state or local assets and money for the enforcement of the same.

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 โ€“ 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 Governorsโ€™ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, โ€œstates are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.โ€

Based onย James Madisonโ€™s advice for states and individualsย inย Federalist #46, a โ€œrefusal to cooperate with officers of the Unionโ€ 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 stepsย would make federal gun laws โ€œnearly impossibleโ€ to enforce.

LEGAL BASIS

The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing EPA rules and regulations rest on a well-established legal principle known asย the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program โ€“ whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.ย Printz v. U.S.ย serves as the cornerstone.

โ€œWe 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 Statesโ€™ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the Statesโ€™ 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.โ€

No determination of constitutionality is necessaryย 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 itโ€™s snowing.

WHATโ€™S NEXT

HB2059 was referred to the House Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey
Latest posts by Mike Maharrey (see all)