State Courts: Overturning Federal Laws?

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law that conflicts with it is void. This includes state laws, which the Supreme Court has held unconstitutional on numerous occasions. State laws are deemed unconstitutional when they conflict with a federal statute, treaty, or the Constitution itself. For example, in Wisconsin v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal Co. (1916), the Supreme Court held that a Wisconsin law violated the Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. In this case, the Court acted as the final arbiter of the constitutionality of both state and federal laws, and its decision set a precedent for lower courts to follow.

State laws conflicting with federal statutes

The Supremacy Clause, outlined in Article VI of the US Constitution, establishes federal laws and treaties made under the Constitution's authority as the "supreme Law of the Land". This means that federal laws take precedence over state laws in the event of a conflict. The Supremacy Clause ensures that federal laws are more important and binding than state laws, helping to maintain uniformity and fairness across the country.

When state and federal laws clash, the federal law will prevail. For example, if a state law permits an act that federal law prohibits, the federal law will override the state law. This dynamic was observed in the case of California's ban on same-sex marriage in 2013, which was deemed unconstitutional by the federal government and subsequently overturned.

State laws that conflict with federal statutes can be deemed void if they meet either of the following conditions:

• Compliance with both the federal and state laws in question is impossible.
• The state law obstructs the full realization of the purposes and objectives of Congress.

In addition, federal civil rights laws, such as those prohibiting discrimination, set a baseline that states cannot weaken. While states can strengthen these protections, they cannot go against the fundamental federal protections. Similarly, states can have stricter environmental rules than federal regulations, but they must not contravene federal guidelines.

The Supremacy Clause also applies to treaties, which are considered equally as important as federal statutes. This means that international agreements made under the Treaty Clause are incorporated into US law and supersede conflicting state laws.

State laws violating due process

The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same wording, referred to as the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.

State laws that violate due process are those that do not provide citizens with fair procedures, even if the government is acting in accordance with the law. For example, in Goss v. Lopez, an Ohio statute provided for both free education to all residents between five and 21 years of age and compulsory school attendance. The state was deemed to have given students some due process hearing rights before suspending them, even for a short period, as the state had obligated itself to accord these rights by providing free education.

In another case, a Louisiana law that established a rebuttable presumption that any person systematically purchasing sugar in Louisiana at a price below that which they paid in any other state was a party to a monopoly or conspiracy in restraint of trade. This law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it declared an individual presumptively guilty of a crime and exempted countless others paying the same price.

Other examples of state laws violating due process include:

• A Wisconsin law that revoked the license of any foreign corporation that removed to a federal court a suit instituted against it by a Wisconsin citizen.
• A Detroit City Railway construction act that compelled the railway to extend its lines to suburban areas annexed by Detroit only on the same terms as were contained in its initial franchise as authorized by the Detroit ordinance.
• A provision of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 making it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an employee of a labor union.
• A provision authorizing federal courts to require the production of documents in suits for forfeitures under revenue and custom laws, which violated the Search and Seizure Clause of the Fourth Amendment and the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

State laws violating equal protection

State laws that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Equal Protection Clause states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

The Supreme Court has ruled that state laws that discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, or gender violate the Equal Protection Clause. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the Court held that the Constitution prohibits states from maintaining racially segregated public schools. Similarly, in Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York (1949), the Court ruled that an African-American student who was admitted to a state-supported graduate school must receive the same treatment as students of other races.

State laws that discriminate against same-sex married couples have also been found to violate the Equal Protection Clause. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court concluded that state laws distinguishing between marriages between same-sex and opposite-sex couples violated the Equal Protection Clause.

In addition to discrimination based on race and gender, the Supreme Court has also ruled that state laws that discriminate against legitimate and illegitimate offspring violate the Equal Protection Clause. In U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973), the Court held that different treatment of legitimate and illegitimate offspring must be based on a reasonable classification and must rationally further a legitimate government interest.

Furthermore, state laws that infringe on fundamental rights, such as the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to procreate, have been found to violate the Equal Protection Clause. For example, in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson (1942), the Court ruled that strict scrutiny of state sterilization laws is essential to prevent invidious discrimination against groups or individuals.

It is important to note that the Equal Protection Clause only limits discrimination by governmental entities, not private parties. However, private agreements to exclude persons of a designated race or color from the use or occupancy of real estate for residential purposes do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment but are instead violative of the Equal Protection Clause.

Federal laws violating freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making laws that infringe on this right. However, the government can restrict speech in certain circumstances. For example, in Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, the Supreme Court ruled that obscenity and child pornography are not protected by the First Amendment, and the government can ban such media.

Other categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and may be restricted include fraud, speech integral to illegal conduct, inciting imminent lawless action, violating intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech. For instance, in United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which prohibited false claims about receiving a military medal.

The First Amendment also does not apply to private entities. In Nyabwa v. Facebook, the Southern District of Texas affirmed that private entities are not subject to the First Amendment. In this case, the plaintiff sued Facebook for locking his account, which he had used to speak about President Donald Trump's business conflicts of interest. The court dismissed the lawsuit, stating that the First Amendment only prevents government entities from restricting free speech.

Additionally, the government has broader powers to restrict the speech of military officers, even if such restrictions would be invalid for civilians. In Parker v. Levy (1974), the Supreme Court affirmed that the military is a "specialized society" requiring stricter guidelines.

State laws that conflict with federal statutes or treaties are void due to the Supremacy Clause, and several state laws have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. However, it is unclear if a state court can declare a federal law unconstitutional.

Federal laws violating search and seizure protections

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens and criminal suspects from unreasonable searches of their property and persons. It also prohibits police officers from making unlawful arrests ("seizures"). The Fourth Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

To obtain a federal warrant, agents must submit a written affidavit to a magistrate for approval. The only way to search and seize these items without a warrant is with probable cause, which the United States Supreme Court defines as a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. For example, law enforcement is allowed to search a vehicle without a warrant under specific circumstances. The exclusionary rule should be invoked with much greater reluctance when the claim is based on a causal relationship between a constitutional violation and the discovery of a live witness than when a similar claim is advanced to support the suppression of an inanimate object.

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. A truly cursory inspection, which involves merely looking at what is already exposed to view without disturbing it, is not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes and therefore does not even require reasonable suspicion.

In Boyd v. United States (1886), a provision authorizing federal courts, in suits for forfeitures under revenue and custom laws, to require the production of documents, was held to violate the Search and Seizure Clause of the Fourth Amendment.

Frequently asked questions