Most people believe that the federal government has an unlimited power to withhold funding to punish state or local governments that refuse to cooperate with its will. For instance, if a state refuses to enforce a specific federal law, the feds could withhold highway funding to motivate cooperation.
This is only true to a very limited extent.
While the feds do have the authority to disperse money, the anti-commandeering doctrine limits the federal government’s ability to use funding in a coercive manner.
Anti-commandeering is a legal principle supported by five major Supreme Court precedents. In a nutshell, the federal government cannot force a state or locality to use its personnel or resources to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs.
This legal principle is rooted in state sovereignty and was summed up succinctly by Justice Samuel Alito in Murphy v. NCAA (2018) when he asserted that Congress can’t take any action that “dictates what a state legislature may and may not do.”
This includes withholding funding to coerce states.
This precedent was set in South Dakota v. Dole (1987) when the court held that the federal government could withhold highway funds from states that refused to raise their minimum drinking age to 21, but only because the amount of funding threatened (a maximum 10 percent) was so small. The court specifically said in its opinion that the amount of funding withheld cannot be “coercive.”
While the SCOTUS didn’t fully define what constitutes “coercive,” it drew a line in the sand, taking away the federal government’s ability to arbitrarily use the threat of funding cuts to force states to do things.
This principle was affirmed in Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), when the Court held that the federal government couldn’t compel states to expand Medicaid under the Obamacare law by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place. Justice John Roberts called it “coercive” and a violation of the separation of powers.
In practice, the federal government can withhold funding that is directly related to the thing the state or locality is refusing to do. For instance, it could cut education funding if the state rejected federal education mandates. But it can’t take away highway funds (at a level deemed “coercive”) to force the state to enforce those federal education rules.
IN A NUTSHELL
- Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, the federal government can not force states to use their personnel or resources to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs.
- The doctrine has been affirmed by five major Supreme Court cases.
- The prohibition on federal commandeering includes using federal funds in a way that “coerces” cooperation.
- The feds can withhold funds relating to something the state isn’t doing, but it can’t threaten unrelated funding at a level deemed “coercive.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION
The States Can Check Federal Power: Anti-commandeering Explained
Anti-Commandeering: An Overview of Five Major Supreme Court Cases
Funding Threats: An Unconstitutional Gun to the Head
- Usurpation: Weapon to Destroy Freedom - January 25, 2026
- Parchment barriers don’t stop tyranny - January 6, 2026
- Living Under the Consolidation the Founders Warned About - December 19, 2025