Kathrine Ann Detwiler, Gary Robert Krum, and Elaine M. Barnhart v. Pennsylvania

In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), this Court held unconstitutional a federal law obligating State officials to implement a federal regulatory scheme. The Printz Court noted that Congress had begun to enact statutes which indirectly required the participation of State or local officials in implementing federal regulatory schemes as a condition of federal funding grants, and noted that these schemes should be addressed “if and when their validity is challenged in a proper case.” Id., at 917-918. Petitioners were convicted in a State court due to an alleged failure to obey a local school face mask regulation promulgated in violation of State law and solely on the “authority” of the American Rescue Plan Act, which ultimately conditioned the use of COVID-19 funds upon local schools’ implementation of CDC recommendations. QUESTION: Where the power to regulate public health is reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the States, is it lawful for a local school board to make public health rules otherwise outside of State law, and solely pursuant to a federal regulation requiring CDC recommendations to be made mandatory rules by those boards receiving federal funds?