Sheriff's Unconstitutional Powers: Can They Override The Law?

In the United States, the role of a sheriff is to enforce the laws of their state. However, in recent years, there have been instances of sheriffs refusing to enforce certain laws, particularly those related to gun control, on the basis that they believe these laws violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. This has raised the question of whether a sheriff has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional. While some self-proclaimed constitutional sheriffs argue that they have the power to determine the constitutionality of the laws they enforce, others disagree, stating that it is the role of the court system to make such determinations. This debate highlights the complex relationship between local law enforcement and the constitutional framework of the country.

Sheriffs are charged with enforcing the laws, not deciding their constitutionality

In the United States, the role of a sheriff is to enforce the laws, not to decide their constitutionality. However, in recent years, there have been instances of sheriffs refusing to enforce certain laws, particularly those related to gun control, on the basis that they believe these laws violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This has raised questions about the authority of sheriffs and their role in interpreting the Constitution.

The "constitutional sheriffs" movement argues that sheriffs have the supreme authority to determine the constitutionality of the laws they are entrusted with enforcing. They claim that their power supersedes that of any other government official or employee within their county jurisdiction. This assertion of authority is often justified by citing historical practices and the oath that sheriffs take to uphold the Constitution.

However, critics argue that sheriffs who selectively enforce laws or declare them unconstitutional are overstepping their role in the constitutional system and undermining the rule of law. The First Amendment protects the right of individuals and elected officials to speak out against laws they disagree with and to use legitimate processes to challenge their constitutionality. While sheriffs can express their opinions and lobby for changes, they are ultimately charged with enforcing the laws as they are, unless a court issues an injunction or strikes down a law.

The judicial system provides remedies for lawless and defiant government officials, including sheriffs. Citizens can seek a writ of mandamus, which allows them to go to court and obtain an order directing a government official to carry out their legal obligations. This ensures that sheriffs or other officials who refuse to enforce laws can be held accountable and sued if necessary.

While sheriffs play a crucial role in law enforcement, their authority is not absolute, and they are subject to the checks and balances of the constitutional system. The interpretation of the Constitution and the determination of a law's constitutionality ultimately rest with the court system, not with individual sheriffs or local law enforcement agencies.

The 'constitutional sheriffs' movement claims that sheriffs have supreme authority

The "constitutional sheriffs movement" claims that sheriffs have the authority to supersede any agent, officer, elected official, or government employee in their county's jurisdiction. This group of self-proclaimed "constitutional sheriffs" bases its assertion on historical practice and the oath they swear to the Constitution, despite the fact that pledging to uphold the Constitution is standard for many public officials. They argue that they have the power to determine the constitutionality of the laws they enforce and can refuse to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional. For instance, some sheriffs have publicly announced that they will not enforce specific gun safety laws that have been passed in their states, such as background check requirements and the surrender of firearms by individuals convicted of domestic violence, citing that these laws violate the Second Amendment.

However, the actions of these sheriffs have been criticized as overstepping their role in the constitutional system and undermining the rule of law. While the First Amendment protects the right of individuals or elected officials to speak out against laws they disagree with, sheriffs are charged with enforcing the laws, not deciding their constitutionality. The judicial system has remedies for defiant government officials, such as the writ of mandamus, which allows citizens to go to court and obtain an order directing a government official to carry out their legal obligations.

The argument that sheriffs have supreme authority raises concerns about the potential for lawlessness and the trampling of constitutional democracy. It is important to note that duly enacted laws must be enforced unless a court issues an injunction or a decision striking them down. The claim that sheriffs can declare laws unconstitutional gives them significant power over various aspects of people's lives, such as tax payments, voting qualifications, and abortion rights.

While there are variations in law enforcement responsibilities between sheriff's offices and municipal police departments across different states and counties, the "constitutional sheriffs movement's" claim of sheriffs having supreme authority goes beyond the traditional understanding of a sheriff's role. The movement's assertion that sheriffs can determine the constitutionality of laws and refuse to enforce them at their discretion remains a highly contested issue.

Sheriffs can be sued by citizens for refusing to enforce laws

While sheriffs do hold a lot of power and have some discretion over which laws they enforce, they can be sued by citizens for refusing to enforce laws. Sheriffs are charged with enforcing the laws, not deciding for themselves whether they are constitutional. In recent years, dozens of states have passed gun safety laws, such as strengthening background checks and requiring those convicted of domestic violence to surrender their firearms. However, some county sheriffs in these states have publicly announced that they will not enforce these laws, claiming that they violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. These sheriffs are overstepping their role in the constitutional system and undermining the rule of law.

The judicial system has remedies for lawless and defiant government officials, including sheriffs. Citizens can go to court and obtain a writ of mandamus, which is an order directing a government official to carry out non-discretionary legal obligations imposed by law. Sheriffs who publicly declare that they refuse to enforce new gun regulations should expect to be sued if that is what is needed to get them to follow the law. Additionally, sheriffs who refuse to carry out safety measures, such as background checks on the purchase of assault weapons, may be held financially responsible if the firearm is subsequently used to kill or injure someone.

While sheriffs may claim that they are defending the constitution or exercising prosecutorial discretion, they are, in fact, violating their oaths to uphold and enforce the laws of their states. Our constitutional democracy does not allow for individuals to become a one-man government and disregard the will of the voters, the legislative process, and the judicial function. Unless a court issues an injunction, duly enacted laws must be enforced unless and until a court decides otherwise. Therefore, citizens can take legal action against sheriffs who refuse to enforce laws, holding them accountable and ensuring the rule of law is upheld.

Sheriffs are overstepping their role and undermining the rule of law

In recent years, there have been several instances of sheriffs refusing to enforce certain laws, particularly around gun control, on the basis that they believe these laws violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. This has led to questions about whether sheriffs have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

The "constitutional sheriffs" movement argues that sheriffs do indeed have this authority. They claim that the law enforcement powers of a sheriff supersede those of any other government official or employee within their county. They further assert that their oath to the Constitution grants them the power to determine the constitutionality of the laws they are tasked with enforcing and, consequently, to refuse to enforce any law they deem unconstitutional.

However, the argument that sheriffs are overstepping their role and undermining the rule of law holds weight. Firstly, it is important to note that the right to speak out against a law or policy, and to challenge its constitutionality through legitimate processes, is protected by the First Amendment. However, this does not grant sheriffs the authority to selectively enforce laws based on their personal interpretation of the Constitution. The role of law enforcement officers is to uphold the law of the land, not to pick and choose which laws to enforce.

Furthermore, the US judicial system has established remedies for addressing defiant government officials, such as the writ of mandamus, which allows citizens to seek a court order directing a government official to carry out their legal obligations. This reinforces the principle that duly enacted laws must be enforced unless a court issues an injunction or a decision striking down the law. Sheriffs who publicly declare their refusal to enforce certain laws are not only overstepping their role but also opening themselves up to legal consequences.

In conclusion, while sheriffs may have concerns about the constitutionality of certain laws, their primary duty is to enforce the laws of their state. By refusing to enforce laws based on their personal interpretation of the Constitution, sheriffs are undermining the established processes for determining the constitutionality of laws and, ultimately, the rule of law.

The court system determines whether a law is constitutional, not sheriffs

In the United States, the court system determines whether a law is constitutional, not individual sheriffs or police officers. While law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the law of the land, some sheriffs have refused to enforce certain laws, such as gun safety laws, on the basis that they believe these laws violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. However, it is not within a sheriff's remit to decide whether a law is constitutional or not.

The "constitutional sheriffs" movement claims that a sheriff's law enforcement powers supersede those of any other government agent or official when in the jurisdiction of the county. They argue that they have the authority to determine the constitutionality of the laws they are tasked with enforcing and can thus refuse to enforce any law they deem unconstitutional. For example, in 2023, the sheriff of Powell County, along with several other sheriffs in the state, declared that they would not enforce any federal gun laws that they considered "unconstitutional".

However, this interpretation of a sheriff's powers is not supported by US law. While sheriffs do have law enforcement powers, including the power to investigate felony cases and enforce penal provisions, their primary duty is to uphold and enforce the laws of their state. As such, they are overstepping their role in the constitutional system when they refuse to enforce laws on the basis of their own interpretation of the constitution.

The judicial system has remedies for lawless and defiant government officials, including sheriffs. Citizens can go to court and obtain a writ of mandamus, which directs a government official to carry out their legal obligations. Ultimately, it is the role of the courts, not individual sheriffs, to interpret the constitution and determine the constitutionality of laws.

Frequently asked questions