State Powers: Blocking Federal Laws?

The relationship between state and federal law in the United States is a complex one, with the federal government sometimes threatening to withhold funds from states to ensure compliance with federal laws. While federal laws are considered superior to state laws and cannot be overruled, states have some power to make laws, and federal laws only win in the case of a conflict. This has led to a rise in lawsuits filed by states, cities, and individuals challenging the actions and policies of the federal government.

Nullification laws

However, the courts, including the US Supreme Court, have consistently rejected the theory of nullification. Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution are considered "the supreme law of the land," taking precedence over any conflicting state laws. The federal judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has been granted the power to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of federal laws, not the states.

Despite the legal rejection of nullification, the idea has persisted and even seen a resurgence in recent years. Scholars have noted an increase in state resistance to federal policies, with states employing various strategies to express their displeasure or prevent the implementation of federal laws within their borders. Some states have turned to lawsuits, while others have used their offices to voice disagreement with federal policies. In some cases, states have even refused grants of free federal funds due to principled disagreements with federal initiatives.

While nullification has a long history in the US, dating back to the early days of the republic, it has never been legally upheld. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, and the Civil War ended most nullification efforts. However, the theory of nullification continues to be invoked as a form of resistance to federal power, particularly in a highly polarized political climate.

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause, part of Article VI of the US Constitution, establishes the Constitution, federal laws made under it, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States as "the supreme law of the land". This means that federal laws and treaties are considered superior to state laws and cannot be overridden by them. The Supremacy Clause was included in the Constitution in 1788, in response to the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a provision declaring federal law as superior to state law.

The Supremacy Clause is considered a cornerstone of the US federal political structure. It assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, as long as that authority is expressed in the Constitution. The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives federal courts the authority over all cases arising under the Constitution or US laws, allowing them to determine whether federal laws are consistent with the Constitution, with the Supreme Court having final authority.

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean federal preemption, which applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions. Federal law can preempt state law either expressly, through explicit language, or implicitly, through its structure and purpose. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an act of Congress, preempts state constitutions, and Food and Drug Administration regulations may preempt state court judgments in cases involving prescription drugs.

The Supremacy Clause has been used to argue that the federal government can make treaties that supersede state law, even if they abrogate states' rights. However, there have been numerous lawsuits challenging federal policies, including those of the Trump administration, and the extent of federal power over states.

Federal court injunctions

Federal law overrides state law when the Federal government has jurisdiction. This is because the states are considered sovereign but have ceded some aspects of their sovereignty to the USA. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution states that federal laws are "the supreme law of the land", and therefore superior to state laws.

However, the Constitution has to grant the relevant power to the Federal government; they cannot just make laws about anything. The power to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies in the federal courts, not in the states. This is supported by the federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution, which gives the federal courts authority over all cases concerning the Constitution and federal laws.

Despite this, there have been instances where states have tried to block federal laws. These are often called "nullification", where states declare national actions unconstitutional and thus void. The idea of nullification has been supported by prominent figures such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. However, nullification has also led to crises, such as the national crisis during the Andrew Jackson administration over state resistance to tariffs on trade.

In recent times, there have been lawsuits filed by states, cities, and individuals challenging the policies of the Trump administration. Federal district courts have increasingly issued injunctions that extend relief beyond the plaintiffs in the case, blocking federal policies from being enforced against the named plaintiffs. These injunctions have been used to promote both conservative and liberal legal results. For example, a Texas federal district court blocked the Obama administration from implementing a controversial interpretation of Title IX, while a district court judge issued a statewide ban on California officials applying Proposition 8, which limited marriage to between a man and a woman, to same-sex couples.

State sovereignty

In the United States, the federal government and individual states have often been at odds over certain laws, with states attempting to block federal laws within their borders. This is based on the concept of state sovereignty, or the idea that states are sovereign entities with the power to nullify or disobey federal laws that they deem unconstitutional or overreaching. While states do have a degree of autonomy, there are limits to their ability to block federal laws.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes the supremacy of federal laws over state laws, stating that the Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it are "the supreme law of the land." This means that federal laws generally override state laws and cannot be negated by states. The federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have the power to determine the constitutionality of federal laws and can strike down state laws that conflict with federal laws or the Constitution.

However, the interpretation and application of federal laws can be complex, and states have occasionally challenged or resisted federal laws that they believe exceed the federal government's powers or infringe on states' rights. This tension between federal and state authority has a long history in the U.S., dating back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. These resolutions asserted states' rights to interpret the Constitution and nullify federal laws that exceeded the federal government's powers.

In modern times, states have continued to challenge federal laws on issues such as gun control, immigration, and healthcare. For example, several states have passed laws attempting to restrict the enforcement of federal gun laws within their borders, citing Second Amendment rights. States have also created "sanctuary" cities or states that refuse to enforce certain federal laws, particularly regarding immigration. Additionally, the Tea Party movement has opposed the concentration of power in the federal government and supported states' rights to nullify national legislation that is perceived as overreaching.

While states have some leeway in interpreting and enforcing federal laws, there are limits. The federal government can threaten to withhold federal funding for certain programs or infrastructure if states do not comply with federal laws. Additionally, the federal government can enforce its laws within states, although it may lack the law enforcement resources to do so effectively in every instance. Ultimately, the balance of power between federal and state authorities in the U.S. is a complex and evolving dynamic, with states asserting their sovereignty while navigating the constraints imposed by federal laws and the Constitution.

Federal government enforcement

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution establishes federal laws as "the supreme law of the land", and federal courts have upheld this clause, ruling that federal laws are superior to state laws and cannot be negated by states. This means that federal laws override state laws when there is a conflict between the two, and the federal government has the power to enforce its laws in states.

However, the enforcement of federal laws by the federal government can become complicated in practice, and there have been instances where states have attempted to block or resist the enforcement of federal laws within their borders. This is sometimes referred to as "nullification" or "interposition". Nullification is based on the idea that states have the right to interpret the Constitution and can declare federal laws unconstitutional when the federal government exceeds its powers. The theory of nullification was endorsed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which were a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts.

In recent years, there have been instances where states have passed laws or taken actions that conflict with federal laws or policies. For example, several states have passed laws restricting federal gun control laws, such as Kansas' Second Amendment Protection Act, which prohibits state officials from enforcing federal gun laws for guns manufactured and kept within the state. In another example, during the Trump administration, there were numerous lawsuits filed by states, cities, individuals, and public interest groups challenging various administration policies and actions.

When faced with such resistance or non-compliance, the federal government has several options for enforcing its laws:

• The federal government can threaten to withhold federal funding from states that do not comply with federal laws or policies. This was used to encourage states to raise the drinking age to 21 by threatening to withhold highway funds.
• The federal government can also choose to enforce its laws using its own law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI. However, this may be limited by budgetary constraints and the number of law enforcement resources available.
• In some cases, the federal government may need to pay for its law enforcement to enforce its laws in states, as it cannot commandeer the resources of the states.
• Finally, the federal government can rely on the interpretation of the law by the federal courts, which have the power to determine whether federal laws are consistent with the Constitution, with the Supreme Court having the final authority. The Supreme Court can issue rulings that block the enforcement of federal laws or policies, as seen in the example of a Texas federal district court blocking the Obama administration from implementing a controversial interpretation of Title IX.

Frequently asked questions