Congress’s prior efforts to legislate relative to state police powers have been hampered by Printz v. United States, which is controlling law. In Printz, The United States Supreme Court held that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution does not empower Congress to compel state or local Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) to fulfill federal tasks, even when those tasks are temporary. The Equality in Policing Act does what no other proposal aimed at nationalizing policing has done to date. It Avoids the Printz problem and paves the way for federal control over local and state policing. Perhaps you ask, why is federal control important? It allows DOJ to develop policing standards that must be followed by every law enforcement agency (LEA) in the United States. We are excited The Equality in Policing Act falls strictly within confines the U.S. Supreme Court listed in the Printz decision:

1. Congress could not require [state or local] Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) to perform federal duties under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Equality in Policing Act will be enforced from afar by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
2. “Congress could not circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the state’s officers directly.” The Equality in Policing Act does not conscript state officers. DOJ personnel will carry out all functions related to The Equality in Policing Act in the same way DOJ carries out all matters pertaining to pattern or practice investigations.
3. The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. The Equality in Policing Act does not command the state officers, or those of their political subdivisions to administer or enforce any aspects of The Equality in Policing Act. Administration and enforcement are the sole responsibility of DOJ.
4. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. The core considerations related to The Equality in Policing Act do not involve a weighing of burdens or benefits but are instead aimed at enabling the United States to exert powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, including ensuring citizens’ constitutional rights are protected. Finally, McCulloch v. United States establishes that when the United States exerts any of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, no valid objection can be based upon the fact that such exercise may be attended by the same incident which attended the exercise by a state of its police power.”