Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T08:21:46.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prohibiting the Conscription of State Officers for Commonwealth Purposes: An American Future for the State Immunity Doctrine?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Matthew Moorhead
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In undertaking its responsibility to interpret and construct federalism, the High Court of Australia has frequently considered the Supreme Court of the United States’ treatment of the same subject. The US influence has been particularly pronounced in the area of State immunity. This article considers whether an American constitutional innovation of the 1990s, the anti-commandeering doctrine articulated in the case of Printz v United States, can and should be transplanted to Australia.

'Printz v United States embodies the [Supreme] Court's most emphatic acclamation of state sovereignty since the New Deal'; it is a ‘watershed in the jurisprudence of federalism.' In the lead judgment, written by Scalia J, the Supreme Court expounded a new bright-line rule:

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.

This rule, the Supreme Court made clear, is categorical and permits no exceptions: It matters not whether policymaking 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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 399 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Professor Fiona Wheeler, Amelia Simpson and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this article.

References

1 von Nessen, Paul, ‘The Use of American Precedents by the High Court of Australia, 1901–1987’ (1992) 14 Adelaide Law Review 181Google Scholar, 184.

2 See, eg, references to the influence of American judicial developments on Dixon J prior to his decision in Melbourne Corporation v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31 ('Melbourne Corporation’) in Austin v Commonwealth (2003) 215 CLR 185 ('Austin’), 251 (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

3 521 US 898 (1997) ('Printz’).

4 Evan Caminker, ‘Printz, State Sovereignty, and the Limits of Formalism’ [1997] Supreme Court Review 199, 199.

5 Gold, Andrew, ‘Formalism and State Sovereignty in Printz v United States: Cooperation by Consent’ (1998) 22 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 247Google Scholar, 258.

6 Printz, 521 US 898, 935 (1997).

7 Ibid.

8 (2003) 215 CLR 185.

9 Ibid 196 (citations omitted).

10 Ibid 268.

11 Ibid 269.

12 5 and 6 December 2007, [2007] HCATrans 723 and 744.

13 (2006) 153 FCR 104.

14 Ibid 109–14.

15 Zentai v Republic of Hungary (2007) 157 FCR 585 ('Zentai’), 586 (Moore J), 589 (Tamberlin J).

16 Ibid 586, 591.

17 Ibid 589.

18 Printz, 521 US 898, 935 (1997).

19 505 US 144 (1992) ('New York’).

20 Ibid 188.

21 In National League of Cities v Usery, 426 US 833 (1976) the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 USC §§ 201–19 (1994). The provision imposed minimum wage and maximum hour requirements upon State and local governments. Although the provision was within the scope of the commerce power, a majority of the Court held that it violated the Tenth Amendment because it impermissibly interfered with the governmental functions of the States and their political subdivisions. National League of Cities v Usery was distinguished in subsequent decisions, and was overruled by the Supreme Court in Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 US 528 (1985).

22 The Tenth Amendment provides: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

23 Pub L No 99–240, 99 Stat 1842.

24 New York, 505 US 144, 175 (1992).

25 Ibid 160.

26 521 US 898 (1997).

27 Pub L No 103–159, 107 Stat 1536 (1993).

28 18 USC §§ 921–31 (1993).

29 Printz, 521 US 898, 905 (1997).

30 Ibid (quoting Bowsher v Synar, 478 US 714, 723–4 (1986), quoting Marsh v Chambers, 463 US 783, 790 (1983)).

31 Ibid 907 (emphasis in original).

32 Ibid 916.

33 Clark, Bradford, ‘Translating Federalism: A Structural Approach’ (1998) 66 George Washington Law Review 1161Google Scholar, 1188 (emphasis in original).

34 Printz, 521 US 898, 918 (1997).

35 Gold, above n 5, 253.

36 Printz, 521 US 898, 918 (1997).

37 Ibid (quoting Principality of Monaco v Mississippi, 292 US 313, 322 (1934)) (alteration in Printz).

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid 919 (quoting James Madison, The Federalist No 39, 245).

40 Ibid.

41 The prohibition on any involuntary reduction of a State's territory, Art. IV, § 3; the Judicial Power Clause, Art. III, § 2; the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, § 2 (which speaks of the ‘Citizens’ of the States); the amendment provision, Art. V (which requires the votes of three fourths of the States to amend the Constitution); and the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, § 4 (which guarantees a republican form of government in the States). Cited at ibid.

42 Printz, 521 US 898, 919 (1997).

43 Gold, above n 5, 260.

44 Tushnet, Mark, ‘Globalization and Federalism in a Post-Printz World’ (2000) 36 Tulsa Law Journal 11Google Scholar, 31.

45 Printz, 521 US 898, 919–20 (1997).

46 Ibid 920 (quoting New York, 505 US 144, 166 (1992)).

47 18 USC § 922(s)(2).

48 Printz, 521 US 898, 935 (1997).

49 Clark, above n 33, 1196–7 (emphasis in original)(citations omitted).

50 Printz, 521 US 898, 972 (1997).

51 See Western Australia v Commonwealth ('Native Title Act Case’) (1995) 183 CLR 373, 464 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Dawson, McHugh JJ); Gerhardy v Brown (1985) 159 CLR 70, 121 (Brennan J).

52 Jackson, Vicki, ‘Federalism and the Uses and Limits of Law: Printz and Principle?’ (1998) 111 Harvard Law Review 2180CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 2195.

53 Ibid 2196.

54 Caminker, above n 4, 207 (quoting Claflin v Houseman, 93 US 130, 136 (1876)).

55 Printz, 521 US 898, 939 (1997).

56 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129 ('Engineers’ Case’).

57 Printz, 521 US 898, 941–2 (1997) (emphasis in original).

58 Ibid 941.

59 Ibid 941–2.

60 New York, 505 US 144, 156–7 (1992).

61 Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law (3rd ed, 2000) vol 1, 906 (emphasis in original). Professor Tribe proposes that Art IV, § 4 (the Guarantee Clause) can be read as a restraint on the federal government's power to interfere with the States’ republican governments.

62 Jackson, above n 52, 2255.

63 Ibid 2257.

64 Hills, Roderick M Jr, ‘The Political Economy of Cooperative Federalism: Why State Autonomy Makes Sense and “Dual Sovereignty” Doesn't’ (1998) 96 Michigan Law Review 813CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 818.

65 Ibid.

66 Tribe, above n 61, 893.

67 Ibid.

68 528 US 141 (2000).

69 18 USC § 2721 (1994).

70 Reno v Condon, 528 US 141, 151 (2000).

71 Erwin Chemerinksy, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (2nd ed, 2002) 318.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid.

74 Reno v Condon, 528 US 141, 146 (2000).

75 Printz, 521 US 898, 961 (1997).

76 Austin (2003) 215 CLR 185, 268–9 (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

77 Leslie Zines, The High Court and the Constitution (4th ed, 1997) 336.

78 Ibid.

79 New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 81 ALJR 34, 88; 231 ALR 1, 56 (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ); R v Public Vehicles Licensing Appeal Tribunal (Tas); Ex parte Australian National Airways Pty Ltd (1964) 113 CLR 207, 225–6.

80 Re Tracey; Ex parte Ryan (1989) 166 CLR 518, 575 (Brennan and Toohey JJ); New South Wales v Commonwealth (No 1) (1932) 46 CLR 155 ('Garnishee (No 1)’). The joint judgment in New South Wales v Commonwealth dismissed South Australia's argument that s 117 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) contravened s 106: (2006) 81 ALJR 34, 121–4; 231 ALR 1, 101–4 (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ).

81 Re Australian Education Union; Ex parte Victoria (1995) 184 CLR 188 ('AEU’), 229 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

82 Native Title Act Case (1995) 183 CLR 373, 464 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ). See also Gerhardy v Brown (1985) 159 CLR 70, 121 (Brennan J).

83 New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 81 ALJR 34, 61, 69; 231 ALR 1, 20, 30.

84 New York, 505 U.S. 144, 168–9 (1992).

85 South Australia v Commonwealth (1942) 65 CLR 373 ('First Uniform Tax Case’); Victoria v Commonwealth (1957) 99 CLR 575 ('Second Uniform Tax Case’).

86 Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, 242 (McHugh J). See also Queensland Electricity Commission v Commonwealth (1985) 159 CLR 192 ('QEC’), 235 (Brennan J); R v Phillips (1970) 125 CLR 93, 116 (Windeyer J).

87 (1947) 74 CLR 31, 81 (Dixon J).

88 Austin (2003) 215 CLR 185, 249 (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

89 Ibid 264.

90 Ibid 301.

91 Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, 135 (Mason CJ); see also McGinty v Western Australia (1996) 186 CLR 140, 169 (Brennan CJ); Austin (2003) 215 CLR 175, 245 (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

92 Austin (2003) 215 CLR 175, 246 (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

93 Ibid 195–6.

94 Ibid 196.

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid (citations omitted).

97 (1995) 184 CLR 188, 232 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

98 Austin (2003) 215 CLR 185, 283 (McHugh J).

99 Ibid 185.

100 See Victoria v Commonwealth (1971) 122 CLR 353 ('Pay-roll Tax Case’), 425 (Gibbs J).

101 (2006) 153 FCR 104; (2007) 157 FCR 585.

102 Zentai (2007) 157 FCR 585.

103 (2007) 157 FCR 585, 588 (emphasis in original).

104 Ibid.

105 (2006) 153 FCR 104, 112.

106 Ibid 111.

107 Ibid 112.

108 (2007) 157 FCR 585, 586 (Moore J), 589 (Tamberlin J), 591 (Gyles J).

109 (2007) 161 FCR 220.

110 Ibid 229–30.

111 Austin (2003) 215 CLR 185, 269 (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

112 (1923) 33 CLR 1.

113 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, 618 (Gummow J). For criticism of the cautious approach adopted by the High Court in Austin, see Simpson, Amelia, ‘State Immunity from Commonwealth Laws: Austin v Commonwealth and Dilemmas of Doctrinal Design’ (2004) 32 University of Western Australia Law Review 44Google Scholar.

114 AEU (1995) 184 CLR 188, 233.

115 Ibid 250.

116 Zines, above n 77, 336.

117 Austin (2003) 215 CLR 185, 249 (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

118 See Hill, Graeme, ‘Austin v Commonwealth: Discrimination and the Melbourne Corporation Doctrine’ (2003) 14 Public Law Review 80Google Scholar; and Simpson, above n 114.

119 QEC (1985) 159 CLR 192, 249 (Deane J); see also 220–1 (Mason J).

120 528 U.S. 141, 151 (2000).

121 Austin (2003) 215 CLR 185, 248.

122 Ibid 246.

123 Stone, Adrienne, ‘The Limits of Constitutional Text and Structure Revisited’ (2005) 28 University of New South Wales Law Journal 842Google Scholar, 845.

124 For American criticism of text and structure interpretations of federalism, see Lessig, Lawrence, ‘Understanding Federalism's Text’ (1998) 66 George Washington Law Review 1218Google Scholar.

125 Tribe, above n 61, 890.

126 Western Australian v Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 201 ('First Territories Senators’ Case’).

127 Queensland v Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 585 ('Second Territories Senators’ Case’), 603 (Stephen J).

128 (2004) 220 CLR 1.

129 Stone, above n 124, 850 (emphasis in original).

130 SirMason, Anthony, ‘The Role of a Constitutional Court in a Federation: A Comparison of the Australian and United States Experience’ (1986) 16 Federal Law Review 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 20.

131 See Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559, 572 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ).

132 Saunders, Cheryl, ‘Administrative Law and Relations between Governments: Australia and Europe Compared’ (2000) 28 Federal Law Review 263CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 267.

133 See, eg, Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire (1986).

134 Hill, Graeme, ‘Revisiting Wakim and Hughes: The Distinct Demands of Federalism’ (2002) 13 Public Law Review 205Google Scholar, 218.

135 Printz, 521 US 898, 921 (1997).

136 (2006) 81 ALJR 34, 158; 231 ALR 1, 151.

137 XYZ v Commonwealth (2006) 227 CLR 532, 571.

138 New York, 505 US 144, 181 (1992), quoting Coleman v Thompson, 501 US 722, 759 (1991).

139 Printz, 521 US 898, 921 (1997), quoting Gregory v Ashcroft 501 US 452, 458 (1991).

140 (1992) 177 CLR 248.

141 Ibid 279 (Brennan, Deane and Toohey JJ).

142 Leeth v Commonwealth (1991) 174 CLR 455, 484.

143 Mason, above n 131, 20.

144 New York v United States, 505 US 144, 169 (1992).

145 Printz, 521 US 898, 920 (1997).

146 Jackson, above n 52, 2201.

147 Hills, above n 64, 828.

148 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520, 558–9, 561.

149 Hill, Graeme, ‘Will the High Court ‘Wakim’ Chapter II of the Constitution?’ (2003) 31 Federal Law Review 445Google Scholar, 474.

150 (2000) 201 CLR 213, 219 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).

151 Hill, above n 150 475.

152 George Winterton, Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General: A Constitutional Analysis (1983) 104, extracted in Hill, above n 150, 475.

153 Hills, above n 64, 826 (emphasis in original).

154 See Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511.

155 Hills, above n 64, 826.

156 First Uniform Tax Case (1942) 65 CLR 373, 429.

157 (2001) 207 CLR 391.

158 Ibid 460.

159 (2003) 215 CLR 185, 306.

160 Hill, above n 150, 476.

161 See, eg, Tramways Case (No 1) (1914) 18 CLR 54, 79 (Isaacs J); R v Murray and Cormie; Ex parte Commonwealth (1916) 22 CLR 437, 452 (Isaacs J), 464 (Higgins J); Trimbole v Dugan (1984) 3 FCR 324, 328 (Woodward J).

162 This can be contrasted with judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), which requires that a decision be ‘administrative’ in nature and made ‘under’ an enactment.

163 Hill, above n 150, 481.

164 Simpson, above n 114, 56 (emphasis in original).

165 Ibid.

166 Ibid.

167 Ibid 57.

168 528 US 141, 151 (2000).

169 Tribe, above n 61, 894.

170 Simpson, above n 114, 52–53.

171 Caminker, above n 4, 200.

172 Stone, Adrienne, ‘The Limits of Constitutional Text and Structure: Standards of Review and the Freedom of Political Communication’ (1999) 23 Melbourne University Law Review 668Google Scholar, 694.

173 Printz, 521 US 898, 940 (1997).

174 Ibid 955.

175 Jackson, above n 52, 2254.

176 Hills, above n 64, 822.

177 Ibid 894.

178 Ibid 895–6.

179 (2003) 215 CLR 185, 305.

180 Printz, 521 US 898, 959 (1997).

181 Ibid.

182 Cornell, Clayton and Pickering, J Mitchell, ‘Guess What Happened on the Way to the Revolution? Precursors to the Supreme Court's Federalism Revolution’ (2004) 34 Publius 85Google Scholar, 85.

183 Printz, 521 US 898, 976–7 (1997).