{
  "id": "R44104",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44104",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 454125,
      "date": "2016-07-07",
      "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:57:25.571420",
      "title": "Federal Power over Local Law Enforcement Reform: Legal Issues",
      "summary": "Several protests around the country regarding police use of force and a perceived lack of accountability for law enforcement officers have sparked a discussion about local law enforcement and judicial practices. In response, several Members of Congress have formulated a number of proposals designed to promote accountability and deter discrimination at the state and local levels. However, because the enforcement of criminal law is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments, the imposition of federal restrictions on such entities raises important constitutional issues: namely, the extent to which the Constitution permits the federal government to regulate the actions of state and local officers. Proposals include imposing restrictions on the receipt of federal funds as well as banning certain practices independently of a tether to federal money. \nThe federal government possesses limited powers. Current proposals to address local law enforcement issues at the federal level must be enacted consistent with a constitutionally enumerated power or powers supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause; otherwise such authority is reserved to the states. At least three constitutional provisions are often invoked to regulate state and local government under current federal laws and are likely to be relied upon by some of the current proposals.\nLegislation that ties conditions to the receipt of federal funds, such as H.R. 1680, H.R. 429, and S. 1056, would likely be supported by Congress\u2019s power under the Spending Clause to provide for the general welfare. Pursuant to this authority, Congress may disperse funds to states contingent on compliance with specific conditions. These can include the adoption of policies that Congress could not otherwise directly impose on states. Conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds that regulate state and local governments must be unambiguous; relate to the federal interest in particular programs; not be barred by another constitutional provision; and not be so coercive as to compel states into participation. \nIn contrast, federal proposals that impose restrictions on state and local governments without a connection to federal money, such as H.R. 1933 and H.R. 2052, might be supported pursuant to the Commerce Clause or under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress possesses the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce. This includes the regulation of the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, as well as activities that have a substantial relation to interstate commerce. Congressional proposals to regulate local governments passed pursuant to this power must likely be directed at economic activity that has a substantial relation to interstate commerce or be limited in application to regulating the channels or instrumentalities of interstate commerce.\nCongress also possesses power to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and may enact \u201cprophylactic legislation\u201d intended to deter violations by proscribing a broader scope of conduct than barred by the Constitution. However, such legislation must be congruent and proportional to the injury to be remedied. In order to support legislation imposing restrictions on local law enforcement under this authority, Congress must likely show a widespread history of violations of the constitutional right to be protected.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44104",
          "sha1": "0082e330a2bbfaabeb287f96c51dd98b722f1ab9",
          "filename": "files/20160707_R44104_0082e330a2bbfaabeb287f96c51dd98b722f1ab9.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44104",
          "sha1": "027962b806131c26497c01e411ad61262a10e622",
          "filename": "files/20160707_R44104_027962b806131c26497c01e411ad61262a10e622.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4850,
          "name": "Criminal Justice"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 442933,
      "date": "2015-07-13",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:48:22.026999",
      "title": "Federal Power over Local Law Enforcement Reform: Legal Issues",
      "summary": "Several protests around the country regarding police use of force and a perceived lack of accountability for law enforcement officers have sparked a discussion about local law enforcement and judicial practices. In response, several Members of Congress have formulated a number of proposals designed to promote accountability and deter discrimination at the state and local levels. However, because the enforcement of criminal law is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments, the imposition of federal restrictions on such entities raises important constitutional issues: namely, the extent to which the Constitution permits the federal government to regulate the actions of state and local officers. Proposals include imposing restrictions on the receipt of federal funds as well as banning certain practices independently of a tether to federal money. \nThe federal government possesses limited powers. Current proposals to address local law enforcement issues at the federal level must be enacted consistent with a constitutionally enumerated power or powers supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause; otherwise such authority is reserved to the states. At least three constitutional provisions are often invoked to regulate state and local government under current federal laws and are likely to be relied upon by some of the current proposals.\nLegislation that ties conditions to the receipt of federal funds, such as H.R. 1680, H.R. 429, and S. 1056, would likely be supported by Congress\u2019s power under the Spending Clause to provide for the general welfare. Pursuant to this authority, Congress may disperse funds to states contingent on compliance with specific conditions. These can include the adoption of policies that Congress could not otherwise directly impose on states. Conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds that regulate state and local governments must be unambiguous; relate to the federal interest in particular programs; not be barred by another constitutional provision; and not be so coercive as to compel states into participation. \nIn contrast, federal proposals that impose restrictions on state and local governments without a connection to federal money, such as H.R. 1933 and H.R. 2052, might be supported pursuant to the Commerce Clause or under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress possesses the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce. This includes the regulation of the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, as well as activities that have a substantial relation to interstate commerce. Congressional proposals to regulate local governments passed pursuant to this power must likely be directed at economic activity that has a substantial relation to interstate commerce or be limited in application to regulating the channels or instrumentalities of interstate commerce.\nCongress also possesses power to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and may enact \u201cprophylactic legislation\u201d intended to deter violations by proscribing a broader scope of conduct than barred by the Constitution. However, such legislation must be congruent and proportional to the injury to be remedied. In order to support legislation imposing restrictions on local law enforcement under this authority, Congress must likely show a widespread history of violations of the constitutional right to be protected.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44104",
          "sha1": "c51f40c82d803c326c7d27d28b9194b540fe908d",
          "filename": "files/20150713_R44104_c51f40c82d803c326c7d27d28b9194b540fe908d.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44104",
          "sha1": "fee8fece7ee0ddcdb94d23f06e077581b09e589e",
          "filename": "files/20150713_R44104_fee8fece7ee0ddcdb94d23f06e077581b09e589e.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}