Challenging Laws: Overriding Unconstitutionality

The concept of an unconstitutional law is based on the idea that a law can be challenged if it violates the terms or interpretation of a constitution. In the United States, the Supreme Court is often called upon to rule on the constitutionality of statutes adopted by the legislature and has the responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation. This is because the US Constitution is the supreme law of the state, and a law that conflicts with it cannot be enforced. A law challenged as unconstitutional can be overridden, but only by the ruling of the Supreme Court or a lower federal court.

The US Supreme Court cannot be overruled

The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the country and plays a critical role in all matters of federal law. While it doesn't always have the final say, its opinions are generally considered final, especially when interpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution can be frustrating to some, as they hold tremendous power and their decisions are extremely difficult to overturn.

The only direct way to override the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is for two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution, which then must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This process requires a significant societal consensus and was intentionally designed to be challenging to prevent majorities from simply taking over the government. For example, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause only prohibits discrimination by government entities and not private entities, Congress used its power to regulate commerce to extend non-discrimination protections to the private sector.

In recent times, there have been calls for Supreme Court reforms and a constitutional amendment to address disagreements with the Court's interpretations. For instance, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced the Stop Corporate Capture Act, aimed at overturning a Supreme Court decision reducing the power of federal agencies to interpret congressional statutes. However, with Republicans controlling the House, the chances of this legislation becoming law are slim.

While Congress can sometimes address disagreements with the Supreme Court's interpretations, the process is complex and time-consuming. It requires a careful strategy and consensus across political divides, which can be challenging to achieve. Therefore, while there are mechanisms to address disagreements with the Supreme Court's decisions, the Court's power and influence remain significant, and its interpretations of the Constitution hold considerable weight.

The US Constitution and state constitutions

The US Constitution defines the powers of the government and applies to its actions. The Supreme Court is responsible for overturning unconstitutional legislation and ruling on the constitutionality of statutes. When a law is found to conflict with the Constitution, the court declares it void in whole or in part. The Supreme Court's rulings cannot be overruled.

A law can be challenged as unconstitutional through a constitutional challenge, which can be brought by any person. This can be done through a Section 1983 lawsuit against a state or local government official, or a Bivens claim against a federal official. Laws are presumed to be constitutional unless a clear violation of a specific provision of the Constitution can be proven.

There are two types of constitutional challenges: facial challenges and as-applied challenges. Facial challenges argue that a law is unconstitutional as it is written, and if successful, invalidate the law for everyone. As-applied challenges argue that a law is being applied in an unconstitutional manner in a specific context, and if successful, only invalidate the law as it applies to the particular litigant.

Examples of laws that have been found to be unconstitutional in whole or in part by the US Supreme Court include:

• A provision of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which made it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or employee of a labor union (United States v. Brown, 1965)
• A provision of the Postal Services and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, which authorized the Post Office Department to detain "communist political propaganda" and forward it to the addressee only if requested (Lamont v. Postmaster General, 1965)
• A portion of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, which authorized the Comptroller General to determine spending reductions to reach congressional targets and report them to the President for implementation, as it violated the constitutional separation of powers (New York v. United States, 1992)

Judicial review and interpretation

The judicial branch, encompassing the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, plays a pivotal role in interpreting laws and assessing their constitutionality. This review process can occur at different levels of the judiciary, depending on the nature and complexity of the case. During judicial review, courts analyse the law in question, evaluating whether it contravenes any provisions or principles enshrined in the constitution. This meticulous examination ensures that laws adhere to the foundational document that governs the nation.

A constitutional challenge can arise when a law is believed to be inherently contrary to the constitution. This is known as a facial challenge, asserting that the law is unconstitutional "on its face". In contrast, an as-applied challenge argues that a law is being implemented in an unconstitutional manner, affecting a specific context or litigant rather than the law's general application. These distinctions are essential in determining the scope and impact of the judicial review process.

The Supreme Court holds the responsibility of overturning unconstitutional legislation, a duty that stems from its obligation to uphold the Constitution. When a law is found to conflict with the constitution, the court declares it void in whole or in part. This declaration renders the law unenforceable, ensuring that it cannot be imposed on citizens. The Supreme Court's rulings in this regard are final and cannot be overridden, underscoring the court's pivotal role in safeguarding the constitution and the rights it guarantees.

To initiate a constitutional challenge, a party must file a pleading, written motion, or other paper that questions the constitutionality of a federal or state statute. This process is meticulously designed to ensure a thorough examination of the law in question. A constitutional challenge can be complex, as laws are presumed constitutional unless a clear violation of a specific constitutional provision is demonstrated. Common challenges include arguments related to equal protection, due process violations, and arbitrary or vague rules.

Common constitutional challenges

Constitutional challenges are an essential mechanism for interpreting the laws that govern a nation, addressing conflicts between legislation or executive actions and constitutional provisions. They are often brought forward when individuals or groups claim that a law or government action infringes on their constitutional rights. Here are some common constitutional challenges:

First Amendment Violations

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms related to religion, expression, assembly, and petition. Constitutional challenges often arise when individuals or groups claim that their First Amendment rights have been violated. For example, in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court ruled that students wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War constituted protected speech.

Equal Protection Clause Violations

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause addresses discrimination. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, emphasizing judicial responsibility in promoting equality. Constitutional challenges often scrutinize whether laws or policies disproportionately impact certain groups, requiring the government to justify these disparities.

Due Process Claims

Due process claims are grounded in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and involve procedural and substantive protections. These challenges ensure that individuals are afforded their constitutional rights during legal proceedings.

Environmental Issues

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court allowed a state to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's inaction on greenhouse gas emissions. This case demonstrated that constitutional challenges can be a tool for addressing environmental concerns and holding government agencies accountable for their actions or inaction.

Voting Rights and Representation

Constitutional challenges have been proposed to address voting rights and representation issues, such as the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, which sought to give the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House and Senate without granting statehood. These challenges often involve complex approval processes and face steep challenges before being adopted.

Presidential Term Limits

There have been constitutional challenges and proposals to amend the Constitution to change presidential term limits. For example, there was a proposal to allow former President Donald Trump to run for a third term. These proposals face a challenging path, as outlined in the Constitution's Article V process.

Suing state or federal officials

Suing the government is very different from suing a private person, company, or entity because the government is entitled to special protections. Under traditional English common law, a doctrine called sovereign immunity prevents citizens from suing the king. This doctrine has been incorporated into American law, imposing limits on lawsuits against government agencies or employees.

The Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the "Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." However, courts have opened their doors for relief against government wrongs under the doctrine that sovereign immunity does not prevent a suit to restrain individual officials, thereby restraining the government as well. This doctrine is based on the idea that a suit against an official is not a suit against the government, but the official's conduct is considered the state's action for finding state action to which the Constitution applies.

There are specific circumstances in which individuals can sue the federal government. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, individuals can sue the federal government for damage to their person or property. Additionally, there may be other circumstances where specific federal regulations establish the right to make a claim against federal agencies or officials.

States also have specific laws outlining when and how they can be sued, which vary depending on the state. For example, Pennsylvania has the Sovereign Immunity Act, while Florida laws include a Waiver of Sovereign Immunity for certain tort actions.

Frequently asked questions