States' Powers: Denying Federal Laws

The concept of a state denying a federal law is not new, and has been referred to as nullification or interposition. While states cannot directly deny federal laws, they can attempt to get around them by declaring national actions unconstitutional and void. This has been attempted several times in history, notably by Southern states during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and more recently by states such as Kansas, which passed a law restricting federal gun laws that it believed violated the Second Amendment. In general, when a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law wins if the Constitution grants the federal government the relevant power.

State laws held unconstitutional

In the United States, state laws that are held to be preempted by federal law are considered void, not because they contravene the Constitution, but because they conflict with a federal statute, treaty, or the Supremacy Clause. Here are some examples of state laws held unconstitutional:

United States v. Peters (1809)

A Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the execution of any process issued to enforce a federal court's sentence was deemed unconstitutional as it attempted to annul the judgment of a court of the United States and destroy rights acquired under it.

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

A Georgia statute annulling the conveyance of public lands authorized by a prior enactment was found to violate the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10) of the Constitution.

Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

A New Hampshire law that altered a charter granted to a private corporation by the British Crown before the Revolution was held to violate the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10).

Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank v. Smith (1821)

A Pennsylvania insolvency law that purported to discharge a debtor from obligations contracted before its passage was deemed unconstitutional as it violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10).

Boyle v. Zacharie (1832)

A Maryland insolvency law could not be used to discharge an obligation contracted in Louisiana after the law's enactment, consistent with the principle of Ogden v. Saunders.

Guinn v. United States (1915)

An Oklahoma constitutional clause from 1910, exempting individuals entitled to vote as of January 1, 1866, and their descendants from a literacy requirement, violated the Fifteenth Amendment's protection of African Americans from discriminatory denial of the right to vote based on race.

Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. Vosburg (1915)

A South Carolina law imposing a penalty on carriers for not adjusting claims within 40 days was deemed invalid as it burdened interstate commerce and conflicted with the federal Carmack Amendment.

Indian Oil Co. v. Oklahoma (1916)

An Oklahoma tax on a lessee's interest in Indian lands, acquired under federal statutory authorization, was void as it taxed a federal instrumentality.

Bank of Commerce v. New York City (1863)

A New York law that included the value of securities of the United States in the capital of a bank subjected to taxation was held invalid as it effectively taxed the securities of the federal government.

Stern v. Marshall (2011)

The Supreme Court held that a counterclaim of tortious interference with a gift during a bankruptcy proceeding was a state common law claim that did not fall under public rights exceptions for Article III jurisdiction.

These cases demonstrate instances where state laws were deemed unconstitutional due to conflicts with federal laws or the United States Constitution.

State sovereignty and refusal to enforce federal regulations

In the United States, the federal government is supreme over state governments, and state sovereignty is limited by the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes that federal law is the "supreme law of the land," taking precedence over state laws in cases of conflict. However, the Tenth Amendment and the Enumerated Powers Clause uphold a system of dual sovereignty, recognising states as sovereign entities that have ceded certain powers to the federal government.

While states cannot directly overrule federal laws, they can attempt to nullify or interpose them, declaring national actions unconstitutional and void. This theory of state power has a long history in the US, endorsed by figures like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and has been invoked in debates over issues such as gun control, healthcare, and civil rights. However, nullification efforts often face legal challenges and are not always successful.

The US Constitution grants certain powers exclusively to the federal government, such as the ability to enter treaties with foreign powers. In other cases, the federal and state governments share legislative power, and federal law prevails if there is a conflict. For example, the federal government can regulate matters that impact interstate commerce, even if they occur entirely within one state.

State action doctrine

The state action doctrine is a critical component of US law, and it plays a significant role in determining whether certain actions or laws are constitutional. This doctrine is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in various cases.

The state action doctrine essentially nullifies any state legislation or action that infringes on the privileges and immunities of US citizens, deprives them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denies them equal protection of the laws. This doctrine applies to state governments and their officials, as well as federal governmental actions. It is important to note that the immunity of states does not shield state officers who are alleged to be engaging in illegal or unconstitutional actions.

The Supreme Court has provided clarity on what constitutes state action. In Griffin v. Maryland, the Court ruled that an official engages in state action if they possess government authority and act under that authority. Additionally, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Court recognised that public officials and government employees have First Amendment rights as private citizens. This means that officials can speak on public issues, including those related to their official responsibilities, as private citizens rather than as public officials.

The state action doctrine has been particularly significant during civil rights movements. During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the Court generally found the presence of state action in racial contexts. This led to a strengthened state action doctrine in the late 1970s and 1980s, with a focus on nonracial cases. The doctrine has also been crucial in determining the unconstitutionality of segregated school systems.

The state action doctrine is not just a textual interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment but also serves the purposes of federalism. The Court's discretion in weighing opposing values and interests can lead to different applications of the doctrine, demonstrating its complexity and importance in US law.

Nullification laws

Between 1798 and the onset of the Civil War in 1861, several states attempted or threatened nullification of federal laws, but none of these efforts were legally upheld. The Civil War itself put an end to most nullification efforts. However, in the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification to prevent the integration of their schools, but these attempts were again rejected by the Supreme Court.

Supporters of nullification argue that it is inherent in the concept of state sovereignty and is a power reserved for states by the Tenth Amendment. They view the Constitution as a "compact" among states, where states delegated certain powers to the federal government while retaining all other powers for themselves. On the other hand, federal courts have rejected this interpretation, maintaining that the Constitution was established directly by the people, making the federal government superior to state governments in certain aspects.

Despite the legal stance, state resistance to federal government actions has intensified and become more frequent due to increasing ideological polarization. State officials, including attorneys general and governors, have increasingly utilized lawsuits, public statements, and even the rejection of federal grants to express their displeasure with federal policies. This resistance has targeted a range of issues, from the Affordable Care Act and education mandates to immigration directives and police militarization.

Federal gun laws

In the United States, federal law takes precedence over state law due to the Supremacy Clause, which is a constitutional rule that gives federal law the highest legal authority. This means that when a state law contradicts or impairs the execution of federal law, the federal law prevails, and the state law is rendered invalid. This is known as the doctrine of preemption.

• The National Firearms Act (NFA): This act imposes a tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms, including machine guns, short-barreled rifles, and silencers.
• The Gun Control Act (GCA): This act prohibits certain individuals, such as felons and domestic abusers, from possessing firearms, and regulates interstate sales of firearms.
• The Federal Firearms License (FFL): This license is required for individuals and businesses engaged in the sale or manufacture of firearms. The ATF regularly publishes updates and notices regarding FFL applications and renewals.
• Restrictions on certain firearms: Federal law prohibits the manufacture, sale, or possession of certain firearms, such as automatic weapons, short-barreled shotguns, and firearms with obliterated serial numbers.
• Background checks: Federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks on potential buyers to ensure they are not prohibited from possessing firearms.

While states cannot outright deny or contradict federal gun laws, they can pass their own laws and regulations to further restrict access to firearms, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights protected by the Second Amendment. For example, states may impose additional restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms, such as requiring permits or licenses for gun ownership, implementing waiting periods for gun purchases, or banning the sale of certain types of firearms or ammunition.

Frequently asked questions