Under Missouri law, state officials cannot use state resources to enforce certain federal laws. In response to a suit filed by the Federal Government challenging this law, the Eighth Circuit agreed Missouri has core Tenth Amendment authority to pass such a law. The court nonetheless struck down Missouri's law on the ground that Missouri's legislature enacted it for a forbidden "reason"—the legislature's belief that certain federal laws are unconstitutional.

The questions presented are:

1. Can federal courts second-guess a State's "reason" for exercising Tenth Amendment authority (as the Eighth Circuit held) or not (as other circuits hold)?

2. Does the Constitution prohibit States from exercising Tenth Amendment authority when motivated by a concern that a federal statute is unconstitutional?

3. Is a state official a proper defendant under Ex parte Young simply because the official is regulated by a statute (as the Eighth Circuit held), or does the official also need to possess authority to enforce the law (as other circuits hold)?

Can federal courts second-guess a State's 'reason' for exercising Tenth Amendment authority?