It’s never been overturned, not even in part.
I first read this case about 1995 and realized right away the significance, if there was a top ten USSC case list for the last hundred years, it’s on it.
And there are things talked about in it that go far beyond the limitations of the federal power over the states, the structure of government itself is discussed pretty thoroughly.
Suffice to say that a large part of what gets done in Washington and how it gets done is blatantly unconstitutional, and I’ll leave it at that.
It was startling to read Justice O'Connor's very clear and direct response, that even I could understand:
"Either type of federal action," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "would 'commandeer' state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution's division of authority between federal and state governments."
Very specifically, she used the word "commandeer", which according to Merriam-Webster means:
1 a : to compel to perform military service, b : to seize for military purposes,
2 : to take arbitrary or forcible possession of
What is unclear to me is her reference to "the Constitution's division of authority between federal and state governments", however the mere fact that she mentioned that there exists a separation of authorities is significant.