The Battle Of State And Federal Law: Who Wins?

The relationship between federal and state law in the United States has been a source of contention, with states occasionally attempting to nullify or reject federal laws. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI establishes federal laws and the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, suggesting that states cannot negate federal laws. Federal laws are deemed valid and controlling as long as they are consistent with the Constitution, with federal courts having the power to determine consistency. The Supreme Court has asserted its authority to interpret the Constitution and federal treaties, rejecting state attempts to nullify them. However, states occasionally challenge federal laws, arguing they have the right to interpret the Constitution and declare federal laws unconstitutional when the federal government exceeds its powers. This tension between federal and state authority has resulted in legal clashes and debates over the extent of state power in relation to federal law.

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause, part of Article VI of the US Constitution, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made under it, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States are the "supreme law of the land". This means that federal laws are superior to state laws and cannot be overridden by them. The Supremacy Clause was a response to the lack of a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation, which governed the US from 1781 to 1789, and which did not declare federal law to be 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 principle derived from the Supremacy Clause is 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.

The Supreme Court has applied the Supremacy Clause in several cases, including United States v. in 1809, and in 1830s when it rejected Georgia's attempt to nullify federal treaties with the Cherokees, asserting that the state's laws were "void, as being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States".

The Supremacy Clause has been a subject of intense controversy during debates over the Constitution's ratification, with advocates of federal supremacy ultimately prevailing.

State sovereignty

In the United States, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution establishes federal laws as "the supreme law of the land", which "cannot be negated by the states". This means that federal laws are superior to state laws and take precedence when a conflict arises between the two. The federal courts have been granted the power to determine whether federal laws are consistent with the Constitution, with the Supreme Court having the final authority.

However, the relationship between federal and state laws is complex, and there have been instances where states have rejected or attempted to nullify federal laws. The ""doctrine of nullification", which emerged during the debate over slavery, asserts that a state can ignore a federal law if it disagrees with it. For example, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that "the states" have the right to interpret the Constitution and can declare federal laws unconstitutional when the federal government exceeds its delegated powers.

In practice, states have occasionally refused to follow Supreme Court rulings. For instance, in 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2006, Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative that sought to prevent state courts from following a Supreme Court ruling. While these actions may seem surprising, they are not necessarily illegal. The Supremacy Clause is not a binary switch, and the system of federalism in the U.S. allows for state law to supplement or coexist with federal law.

Additionally, preemption can occur when federal laws and state laws conflict. Preemption can be express, where Congress explicitly states its intention to preempt state law, or implied, where state and federal laws directly conflict or where federal laws dominate a field that a state law seeks to regulate. For example, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law penalizing undocumented immigrants for working without authorization. In another case, Sperry v. Florida (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that federal patent law preempted a Florida state law governing the licensure of attorneys.

In conclusion, while states theoretically cannot ignore federal laws, the complex interplay between federal and state laws has led to instances where states have rejected or attempted to nullify federal laws. The doctrine of nullification, preemption, and the coexistence of federal and state laws within the system of federalism contribute to this dynamic relationship.

Conflict between federal and state laws

In the United States, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution establishes federal laws and the Constitution as "the supreme law of the land", which takes precedence over state laws. Federal laws are valid and controlling as long as they are consistent with the Constitution. The federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, have the power to determine whether federal laws are consistent with the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers indicate that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies with the federal courts, not the states. However, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that "the states" have the right to interpret the Constitution and can declare federal laws unconstitutional when the federal government exceeds its powers. This is known as the "doctrine of nullification".

Despite the Supremacy Clause, conflicts between federal and state laws can still occur. This is known as preemption, where state laws that conflict with federal law are rendered ineffective. Preemption can be express, where Congress explicitly states its intention to preempt state law, or implied, where state and federal laws directly conflict or federal law dominates a field that state law seeks to regulate. For example, in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law penalizing undocumented immigrants working without authorization. In another case, Sperry v. Florida, the Supreme Court ruled that federal patent law preempted a Florida state law regarding the licensure of attorneys.

While states cannot nullify federal laws, there have been instances where states have rejected or refused to follow decisions of the federal courts. For example, in 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2006, Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative to prevent state courts from following a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. These cases highlight the complex dynamics between federal and state laws and the ongoing debate over the extent of federal power over states.

Nullification

The theories of nullification and interposition were first asserted in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. These resolutions argued that the states had the right to interpret the Constitution and could declare federal laws unconstitutional when the federal government exceeded its delegated powers. The related idea of interposition suggests that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional.

However, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution states that the Constitution and federal laws made in pursuance thereof are "the supreme law of the land", and federal laws are therefore superior to state laws. The federal judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has the final power to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of federal laws.

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws, but none of these efforts were legally upheld. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts. 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.

Federal court decisions

The Federalist Papers indicate that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies with the federal courts, not the states. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that "the states" have the right to interpret the Constitution and can declare federal laws unconstitutional when the federal government exceeds its powers. This was the first assertion of the theories of nullification and interposition. Nullification is the doctrine that a state can reject a federal law it disagrees with.

In 1809, the Supreme Court first dealt with nullification in the case of United States v., and in the 1830s, the Nullification Crisis saw Madison denounce as unconstitutional the concept of nullification of federal law by a state. The Supreme Court has also rejected attempts by states to nullify federal laws, such as in the case of Georgia's attempt to nullify federal treaties with the Cherokees. The Court held that Georgia's laws regulating Cherokee land were "void, as being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States".

Despite these rulings, states have continued to reject federal court decisions. For example, in 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2006, Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative that sought to prevent state courts from following a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. These cases highlight the tension between federal and state laws and the ongoing debate over the power of states to reject federal court decisions.

Frequently asked questions