Writing for the Court, Justice Harry Blackmun began by declaring that the “traditional governmental function” test established in National League of Cities v. Usery has proven to be unworkable in practice and inconsistent with established principles of federalism. Blackmun explained that federal and state courts have struggled for eight years to distinguish “traditional” from “nontraditional” functions of government, ultimately leading to contradictory results. Blackmun argued that any rule of state immunity that relies on a judicial appraisal of which state policies are “integral” or “necessary” inevitably invites the unelected federal judiciary to substitute its own policy preferences for those put in power through the democratic process.  

Blackmun posited that the Framers designed the federal system to protect the states through their participation in the national political process rather than through judicially enforced categories of state activity. Blackmun pointed to the role of the states in electing members of the Executive and Legislative branches as the primary means of ensuring that Congress does not overreach. Blackmun explained that this “built-in restraint” ensures that the national political process will remain responsive to the interests of the states as sovereign entities. 

To support the effectiveness of these political safeguards, Blackmun highlighted the success states have had in influencing federal legislation and securing federal funding. Blackmun explained that states have consistently directed a substantial proportion of federal revenues into their own treasuries through various grants and have frequently obtained exemptions for themselves from generally applicable federal obligations. Blackmun stated that because the internal safeguards of the political process have performed as intended, the Court must conclude that the minimum-wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act are not destructive of state sovereignty. Therefore, the Court overruled National League of Cities, holding that the principal limit on the federal commerce power is the political process itself, not the Tenth Amendment.