11/68 10th: Reserved powers

Tenth Amendment: Powers reserved to the states and the people

Lesson 11 of 68 · Local government and the city council · 6 min read

On this page (8 sections)
  1. The text
  2. How courts read it
  3. Where cities fit
  4. How it reaches Williams
  5. In Williams
  6. Common misconceptions
  7. Check yourself
  8. Sources cited on this page

The Tenth Amendment says the federal government has only the powers the Constitution gives it, and the rest belong to the states or the people. It's the textual home of federalism. It also explains where a city like Williams fits: a city's powers come from its state, not from the federal Constitution, so a city has no Tenth Amendment rights against California.

Key takeaways

  • Powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people.
  • The general "police power" over health, safety and welfare belongs to states, which pass much of it to cities.
  • The federal government can't commandeer state or city officials (New York, Printz, Murphy).
  • A state can create, change or abolish its cities' powers (Hunter v. Pittsburgh).

The text

Official textAmendment Xread in context: Amendment X

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.

Source: National Archives transcription Verified1

How courts read it

A truism. "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered" (United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941)) Verified2. On its own it doesn't stop Congress from using a power it does have.

Political safeguards. In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), the Court held federal wage law could apply to a city transit system and that state interests are protected mainly by "the structure of the Federal Government itself": "the political process effectively protected that role" (Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)) Verified3.

Anti-commandeering. The clearest judicial limit. "Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program" (New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)) Verified4, and the federal government may not "command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program" (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)) Verified5. Murphy v. NCAA (2018) extended this to federal laws that forbid states from changing their own laws Verified6. Note "political subdivisions": the rule protects cities too.

Where cities fit

The Constitution mentions states, not cities. The Supreme Court has said: "Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the state, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the state as may be intrusted to them," and "the number, nature, and duration of the powers conferred upon these corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state" (Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907)) Verified7.

In California, the state constitution shapes that discretion. Article XI lets cities "make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws" (§7) Verified8, and Williams, a general law city, also has the statutory powers the Legislature grants. See California Article XI and State law and the city.

How it reaches Williams

Two ways:

  1. As a shield. Federal agencies can't order Williams staff to enforce federal programs Verified5.
  2. Not as a sword against California. Williams can't use the Tenth Amendment to resist state law Verified7.

In Williams

  • Federal grants. Washington can attach conditions to money it offers Williams (Spending Clause, Dole), but can't simply command the city Verified95.
  • State mandates. California can require things of Williams that the federal government couldn't Verified7. California's constitution separately requires the state to pay for some new programs it mandates on local governments (Article XIII B, §6) Verified8.

Common misconceptions

  • "The Tenth Amendment protects cities from the state." No; cities are subdivisions of the state Verified7.
  • "The Tenth Amendment voids any federal law that affects states." Only where Congress lacks the power or commandeers Verified25.

Check yourself

Pick an answer for each question. You will see right away if it is right, and why.

Question 1. Can Congress order Williams police to enforce a federal regulatory program?

Show the answer and why

No. Printz bars commanding state officers "or those of their political subdivisions" to enforce federal programs Verified5.

Question 2. Can Williams rely on the Tenth Amendment to block a California statute?

Show the answer and why

No. Under Hunter v. Pittsburgh, a city's powers rest "in the absolute discretion of the state" Verified7.

Question 3. What did Darby call the Tenth Amendment?

Show the answer and why

"A truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered" Verified2.

Question 4. Scenario: Suppose a federal agency orders Williams staff to enforce a federal program. What is the rule?

Show the answer and why

Answer: The federal government can't commandeer city officials.

Federal agencies can't order Williams staff to enforce federal programs. But a city has no Tenth Amendment rights against California, because its powers come from the state.

From this lesson: “Federal agencies can't order Williams staff to enforce federal programs.”

Sources cited on this page

  1. The Bill of Rights: A Transcription (U.S. National Archives; official; accessed 2026-10-17) ↗
  2. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  3. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  4. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  5. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  6. Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 584 U.S. 453 (2018) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  7. Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  8. Constitutions of California and the United States, 2025-26 edition (PDF) (California State Senate; official; accessed 2026-10-17) California Constitution as last amended November 5, 2024. ↗
  9. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗

Page last updated: · Site last built: