Judge's Duty: Enforcing Or Refusing Unconstitutional Laws?

The concept of judicial enforcement of laws deemed unconstitutional has been a contentious issue, with a history of resistance and non-compliance. While the interpretation of the Constitution suggests that the President is obligated to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, there is no explicit power granted to enforce unconstitutional statutes. This duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution implies that the President, and by extension, the judiciary, must refrain from enforcing laws deemed unconstitutional. This stance has been supported by historical examples, such as President Jefferson's halt of Sedition Act prosecutions, and Supreme Court decisions overturning convictions based on state laws that conflict with constitutional rights. The question of enforceability gains complexity when the executive branch strongly opposes a court ruling, as seen in instances where federal court decisions were rendered unenforceable due to presidential refusal. The dynamic between state and federal laws further complicates this issue, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which sparked resistance from state officials.

The US Justice Department's stance on administrative law judges

The US Justice Department has taken a strong stance against unconstitutional laws and their enforcement by administrative law judges. Notably, the Department has filed lawsuits against several states, including Texas, Iowa, and Oklahoma, challenging their unconstitutional state immigration laws. In these cases, the Department asserted the supremacy of federal immigration law under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and Foreign Commerce Clause.

For instance, in the suit against Texas, the Justice Department argued that the state's Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) interfered with the federal government's authority to regulate immigration and manage international borders. SB 4 would have created new state crimes related to immigration and granted state judges the power to order removal from the country, conflicting with federal law and the conduct of foreign relations. The Department sought a declaration of SB 4's invalidity and an injunction to prevent its enforcement.

The Justice Department's actions demonstrate its commitment to upholding the Constitution and ensuring that state laws do not supersede federal authority in areas explicitly delegated to the federal government. This is in line with the Department's role in investigating and prosecuting allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers, including judges. The Department's authority extends to addressing misconduct, such as excessive force, sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to the medical needs of individuals in custody.

Additionally, the Justice Manual outlines the Department's approach to addressing violations of federal law by state or local governmental entities. The Department typically seeks resolutions through settlement agreements or consent decrees, which are negotiated court orders enforceable through contempt motions. These measures help ensure compliance with federal law and the protection of individuals' rights, demonstrating the Justice Department's proactive stance on administrative law judges' enforcement of unconstitutional laws.

The President's duty to disregard unconstitutional laws

The US Constitution does not empower the President to enforce laws they deem to be unconstitutional. The President's duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution requires them to disregard unconstitutional laws. This is supported by the Faithful Execution Clause, which mandates that the President chooses the Constitution over unconstitutional laws.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, for instance, argued that executives could not enforce unconstitutional laws. Jefferson, in particular, stopped Sedition Act prosecutions, believing the Act was unconstitutional. He stated that his duty to defend the Constitution barred him from executing measures that violated it.

The Take Care Clause, found in Article II, Section 3, is a major source of presidential power, granting broad enforcement authority to the President. However, it also serves as a limitation on that power, underscoring the President's duty to faithfully execute the laws of Congress and not disregard them. The interpretation of this clause has been a subject of debate, with some arguing that it grants the President wide discretion to disregard laws they deem unconstitutional, while others contend that the President may only refuse to comply when there is no credible constitutional defence of a law's provisions.

The question of whether the executive is obligated to enforce final court judgments has been a matter of debate. While the Constitution's structure and Article II's command that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" imply such an obligation, this has not been definitively resolved. On at least two occasions, federal court decisions have been rendered unenforceable due to a President's refusal to accept them.

In conclusion, the President has a duty to disregard unconstitutional laws to uphold their responsibility to preserve and defend the Constitution. This duty is supported by the Faithful Execution Clause and the interpretations of historical figures like Thomas Jefferson. While the extent of presidential power granted by the Take Care Clause is debated, it is clear that the President must faithfully execute the laws of Congress and cannot enforce laws they deem unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's role in state laws

The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the United States, with its role and powers established by Article III of the Constitution. The Court's decisions have a profound impact on society, shaping the rights and freedoms of Americans.

Article III, Section I of the Constitution vests the federal judiciary power in the Supreme Court, with Congress given the power to organise the Court's structure. The Judiciary Act of 1789 was the first exercise of this power, creating a Supreme Court with six justices and establishing the lower federal court system.

Article III, Section II outlines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, detailing its original and appellate jurisdiction. The Court has original jurisdiction over cases between states, those involving ambassadors, and other specific scenarios. It can exercise appellate jurisdiction over almost any other case involving constitutional or federal law, including those where the United States is a party, or those involving treaties and admiralty law.

The Supreme Court's decisions have often been pivotal in shaping societal norms and addressing injustices. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court's ruling that racial segregation of public schools was unconstitutional sparked a crisis for federalism, with southern segregationists vehemently resisting the decision. Similarly, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, the Court upheld the right of students to express their political views, ruling that they do not "shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate."

Federal statutes and the use of military force

The use of federal statutes to authorize the deployment of military force within the United States has a long history, dating back to 1795. This statute allows the president to use military force domestically when, in their judgment, defiance of federal authority makes it impossible to enforce the laws of the United States through regular judicial proceedings.

One notable example of this statute's application occurred in 1957, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower, urged by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, issued a statement proclaiming the necessity of enforcing federal law and court orders. He pledged to use "whatever force may be necessary" to uphold the law in response to resistance to racial desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas. Eisenhower invoked the aforementioned federal statute, authorizing the deployment of the 101st Airborne Division to enforce integration at Little Rock Central High School.

Another federal statute that has been used to justify the use of military force is the Civil Rights Act of 1871, an anti-Ku Klux Klan measure. This statute is applicable when resistance to the law deprives a class of people of their constitutional rights, and it has been invoked to protect civil rights and enforce federal authority.

In more recent times, the Posse Comitatus Act has been enacted to prevent the president from using the military as a domestic police force. This act prohibits federal troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorized by law. However, there are exceptions to this act, such as the Insurrection Act, which empowers the president to deploy the military to suppress an insurrection or enforce federal law at the request of a state government.

Federal statutes have been invoked on several occasions to enforce court orders and uphold federal authority, often in response to resistance to racial desegregation and civil rights. These statutes provide the legal framework for the president to utilize military force within the United States in exceptional circumstances.

State sovereignty and federal regulatory purposes

The concept of state sovereignty and federal regulatory purposes has been a contentious issue in the United States, with the Tenth Amendment often cited in debates surrounding the balance of power between states and the federal government. The Tenth Amendment asserts that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states. This amendment has been central to discussions on state sovereignty and whether states can refuse to enforce federal regulations.

In the context of state sovereignty and federal regulatory purposes, a notable example is the case of New York state and two of its counties filing a suit against the United States. The suit sought a declaratory judgment that certain incentives provided by the federal government were inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment. The Court found that while Congress has the authority to regulate the interstate market for low-level radioactive waste disposal under the Commerce Clause, it could not compel states to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program. Instead, Congress must exercise legislative authority directly upon individuals.

Another case that illustrates this tension is the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which held that the racial segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. This decision sparked a crisis for federalism as southern segregationists, including state officials, defied the ruling, leading to what became known as "Massive Resistance." The executive branch was forced to intervene, and on several occasions, presidents authorized the use of military force to enforce compliance with federal court orders, as seen in President Eisenhower's actions in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The interpretation of the Supremacy Clause has also played a role in shaping the relationship between state sovereignty and federal regulatory purposes. The Supremacy Clause establishes that valid federal statutes take precedence over state laws, and judges across the country are bound to follow these federal statutes. However, there are differing opinions on what constitutes a conflict between federal and state laws, and the precise trigger for when federal law supersedes state law is subject to debate.

In conclusion, the dynamic between state sovereignty and federal regulatory purposes is complex and has been the subject of legal disputes. While states retain certain powers under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government can exercise its authority through the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. The interpretation and application of these constitutional provisions shape the balance of power between states and the federal government, influencing the extent to which states can refuse to enforce federal regulations.

Frequently asked questions