by Peter Rykowski
Over the last century, the U.S. federal government has grown dramatically. Constitutionally limited in scope — Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution expressly lists the areas the federal government can legislate on — it has long ignored and far exceeded those limitations. These usurpations have been accompanied by increasing infringements on Americans’ God-given rights, protected by the Bill of Rights. Our current government is a rampaging beast that has broken out of its constitutional restraints.
To protect our God-given rights — which the Founding Fathers fought hard to secure — from federal usurpations, it’s essential that we rein the federal government back within its constitutional boundaries. In addition to creating an informed electorate that will send constitutionally minded representatives to Washington, D.C., state governments play an essential role in achieving this.
Under the Constitution, the states retain their sovereignty over all matters not explicitly delegated to the federal government. As James Madison noted in The Federalist, No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Additionally, Article VI of the Constitution declares that only laws “which shall be made in Pursuance” of the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Accordingly, states can and should nullify all federal laws that violate the Constitution.
This article lists specific ways states can rein in federal overreach in law enforcement, an area the federal government has no constitutional authority over. State legislators would be wise to advance similar measures in their own states.
Denying Recognition
As the federal government has grown, state governments have increasingly codified federal laws into their own statutes. This trend dangerously threatens state sovereignty and the constitutional principle of dual sovereignty — where the federal government and states have jurisdiction over their own, separate policy spheres — since these federal laws are overwhelmingly unconstitutional, and their codification into state statutes effectively renders the states subservient to the federal government. Accordingly, states should repeal every law that codifies federal laws into their statutes.
An excellent example of this is Kentucky’s S.B. 115, introduced in the state General Assembly in 2024. Sponsored by now-former Senator Adrienne Southworth (R-Lawrenceburg), it would have amended Kentucky’s statute listing federal law-enforcement agencies which “shall be deemed peace officers and shall have the same powers and duties of any other peace officer in the Commonwealth” by removing nearly every listed agency.
Specifically, S.B. 115 would have removed state recognition for law-enforcement officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Secret Service; U.S. Marshals Service; Drug Enforcement Administration; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Forest Service; Department of Agriculture’s Office of the Inspector General; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the National Park Service. Officers of those agencies would have lost their default status as “peace officers” with “the same powers and duties of any other peace officer” in Kentucky.
Under the bill, only the U.S. Mint Police of the Department of the Treasury would have retained default state recognition — and only “within the borders of the Fort Knox Military Reservation” and “upon the written request” of local law-enforcement agencies.
S.B. 115 is important because none of the affected federal law-enforcement agencies are constitutionally authorized — nowhere does the U.S. Constitution permit the federal government to engage in domestic law enforcement. Accordingly, this bill would have taken a major step toward recognizing a constitutional understanding of federal authority. Although the Kentucky General Assembly did not advance S.B. 115, it remains an excellent model for legislators to follow.
Do Not Comply
Although Kentucky’s S.B. 115 is an important solution to federal law-enforcement overreach, it is far from the only one. Arizona’s H.B. 2309, introduced in 2023, is another strong bill.
Sponsored by state Representative Rachel Keshel (R-Tucson), this bill would have prohibited state and local law-enforcement agencies from complying with certain federal edicts that contradict state law. The bill declared:
Pursuant to the sovereign authority of this state and Article II, Section 3, Constitution of Arizona, this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the United States government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the authority of state and local law enforcement agencies.
In other words, H.B. 2309 would have nullified federal acts infringing on the independence of state and local law-enforcement agencies. By denying state and local support for those federal acts, this bill would have rendered them largely ineffective. In an article discussing H.B. 2309, the Tenth Amendment Center noted the effectiveness of such measures:
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Although the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature passed H.B. 2309 by party-line votes, Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, vetoed the bill, thus preventing it from becoming law. Nonetheless, H.B. 2309 remains an excellent model for state legislators.
Sheriffs First
County sheriffs are unique among local law enforcement, since they are elected officials who are directly accountable to the people. Although they hold a position key to protecting their citizens’ God-given rights, state legislators play an important role in empowering them to do so effectively — and legislators have introduced legislation to strengthen their ability to resist federal usurpations.
Montana legislators introduced the strongest such bills: H.B. 604, introduced by Representative Jennifer Carlson (R-Manhattan) in 2023, and H.B. 439, introduced by Representative Lee Deming (R-Laurel) in 2025.
As originally introduced, these bills would have banned federal agents from making “an arrest, search, or seizure in this state without the written permission of the sheriff or designee of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search, or seizure will occur.” Furthermore, they would have nullified any federal law usurping the authority of county sheriffs:
Pursuant to the 10th amendment to the United States constitution and this state’s compact with the other states, the legislature declares that any federal law purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state.
Under both bills, federal agents who violated their provisions would be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished accordingly. Although the bills contained certain exceptions — e.g., arrests, searches, or seizures happening on a federal enclave, or sheriffs declining to enforce the bills’ provisions — they would have been strong steps toward empowering county sheriffs and nullifying unconstitutional federal overreach.
Although both bills failed to pass, the concept appears to have gained traction. H.B. 604 failed in the Montana House of Representatives by a 32-68 vote in March 2023, but H.B. 439 failed by a narrower 44-56 vote in February 2025 — despite House Republicans holding a significantly narrower majority in 2025 (Democrats unanimously opposed both bills). Additionally, similar legislation — H.B. 102 — has been introduced in the New Hampshire General Court this year.
“Sheriffs First” bills are a powerful method for nullifying unconstitutional federal law-enforcement acts, and state legislators should continue and increase the bills’ momentum.
Second Amendment Protection Act
The legislation analyzed so far in this article has dealt solely with setting states’ and localities’ overall procedures when interacting with the federal government. However, state legislatures can enact — and have enacted — legislation focusing on specific policy areas, such as gun control.
Sticking to the subject of gun control, multiple states have enacted “Second Amendment sanctuary” legislation, which prohibits — to varying degrees, depending on their individual provisions — state and local enforcement of federal gun laws. Although limited to a single topic, these bills — if they include strong provisions and are properly enforced — would not only hamper unconstitutional federal law-enforcement efforts, but protect citizens’ God-given right to self-defense.
These efforts included Wyoming’s S.F. 196, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year. Although Wyoming legislators enacted legislation to nullify federal gun control — titled the Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA) — in 2022, S.F. 196 would have strengthened this law. For example, while the current SAPA prevents state funding from being used to enforce federal gun control, S.F. 196 would have also banned the use of federal grants for this purpose. Additionally, it would have clarified the law’s language to ensure that it is enforceable — and that any federal acts “regarding firearms, accessories or ammunition” are not enforced by state and local law enforcement.
Although the Wyoming Legislature passed S.F. 196, Governor Mark Gordon vetoed the bill. In his veto message, he compared the bill to leftist “Defund the Police” efforts and declared:
Do we back the Blue, or do we want them gone? That is the question this Act raises.
Senate File 196, in practical reality, could prohibit the state and our political subdivisions from enforcing almost any federal firearm regulations, regardless of their perceived constitutionality. This leaves huge gaps in the State’s ability to pursue criminal actors unlawfully using guns to threaten and harm innocent people. [Emphasis in original.]
However, Gordon failed to acknowledge the fundamental distinction between federal and state and local law enforcement — namely that federal law enforcement inherently violates the Constitution and threatens the independence of state and local law enforcement. Federal law enforcement must be abolished, and this is consistent with — and necessary for — supporting and strengthening state and local law enforcement.
Although S.F. 196 did not become law, the Wyoming Legislature can try again in 2026 or 2027 — and other state legislatures can advance similar legislation.
Upholding the Constitution
If state legislators across the United States enacted bills similar to the ones discussed above, our nation would take a major step toward returning to constitutional adherence. Over the preceding decades, our federal and state elected officials have increasingly ignored and violated the U.S. Constitution in a wide range of areas, and it’s essential that we once again uphold this foundational blueprint for securing a free republic.
A common thread for all the bills analyzed above is that they failed to become law, either because legislators refused to pass them or their respective governors vetoed them. This illustrates the need to inform our elected officials about constitutional principles — and ensure that we elect constitutionally minded leaders.
Accordingly, it is essential that we inform our state and local elected officials, as well as fellow citizens, about constitutional principles and their implications on law enforcement. One way to do this is to share copies of this Intelligence Brief, pointing out to them the various articles explaining these principles. Additionally, give them copies of the article “Strings Attached: Federal Takeover of Local Police Via Grants” — published in the February 10, 2025 issue of The New American — which explains how federal law-enforcement grants violate the U.S. Constitution and threaten the independence of state and local law enforcement. By creating an informed electorate and political leadership, we can make a significant impact in advancing constitutional policies.
In addition to informing our leaders, we must vigilantly pressure them to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Experience shows that if voters don’t actively hold their elected officials accountable, those officials will often drift away from their professed values. In fact, they have often proposed or enacted measures increasing federal or even international control over local police. For example, in 2023, New York legislators introduced S. 4894, which would have required police use-of-force policies to “be consistent with” United Nations guidelines. Additionally, in 2024, West Virginia legislators enacted H.B. 4297, which aligned state law with the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Citizens must take action to prevent any further erosion of state sovereignty and independent law enforcement.
To help accomplish this, The New American publishes Scorecards of federal and state legislators, rating their voting records based on constitutional principles. These tools can be used to inform voters about their legislators’ performance and exhort those legislators to maintain or improve their records. They can be accessed, downloaded, and printed at TheFreedomIndex.org.
Although our country has drifted far from its founding principles, there is still hope. States retain powerful constitutional and legislative tools to push back against federal overreach, and an informed electorate can ensure that elected officials follow the Constitution. It’s up to us to become active and work together in an organized manner to defend our constitutional Republic.