State Laws: Unconstitutional Or Not?

The concept of nullification in the US Constitution asserts that federal laws are superior to state laws and cannot be overridden by them. The federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have been given the power to determine whether federal laws are consistent with the Constitution and declare them unconstitutional if they are not. This means that state laws can be deemed unconstitutional if they conflict with federal laws or treaties. For example, in Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court rejected Georgia's attempt to nullify federal treaties with the Cherokees, holding that the laws of Georgia can have no force on Cherokee land. In another instance, a New York act requiring the owner of an ocean-going passenger vessel to post a bond for each passenger was deemed unconstitutional as it contravened Congress's exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce.

Federal law superiority

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes federal law superiority over state law. This is a cornerstone of the federal political structure in the United States. The Supremacy Clause dictates that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under its authority are the "supreme Law of the Land". This means that federal law takes priority over any conflicting state laws, and state courts and constitutions are subordinate to federal law.

The Supreme Court has the power to review state court decisions and can overrule them if they conflict with federal law or the Constitution. This power was established in the cases of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and Cohens v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause and Article III grant it the authority to review state court decisions involving issues arising under federal law and the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has used this power in several cases to strike down state laws as unconstitutional. For example, in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court found that a Maryland tax on a federally incorporated bank was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause. Similarly, in Ableman v. Booth, the Court held that a Wisconsin court could not nullify the judgments of a federal court, again citing the Supremacy Clause.

It is important to note that while federal law takes precedence over state law, it must still operate within the boundaries of the Constitution. Federal statutes and treaties must be within the federal government's enumerated powers and must not violate constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution specifically states that the federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

State law nullification

Nullification is the belief that states can invalidate federal laws they deem unconstitutional. This idea was first proposed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. They believed that the Constitution was a compact among states, and thus, states retained the power to determine when federal actions were unconstitutional.

The theory of nullification holds that the states may reject or nullify federal laws that they believe go beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition suggests that a state has the right and duty to "interpose" when the federal government enacts laws that the state considers unconstitutional.

Supporters of nullification argue that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional is inherent in the concept of state sovereignty and is one of the powers reserved for the states by the Tenth Amendment. They claim that before the Constitution was ratified, the states were essentially separate nations, and that the Constitution is a contract or "compact" among the states. According to this view, the states delegated certain powers to the federal government while retaining all other powers for themselves.

However, nullification as a legal doctrine has been consistently rejected by the Supreme Court and federal courts. The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law takes precedence over state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. The power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states.

State law preemption

Congress may expressly provide that state laws on a given topic are preempted, which is known as "express preemption". For example, the Voting Rights Act, an act of Congress, preempts state constitutions. In other cases, state laws are held preempted by courts because it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law, or because the state law impedes the accomplishment of federal law objectives. This is known as "implied preemption", which is a controversial doctrine because it may be significantly harder to prevent than either outright or express preemption. Some states have outlawed implied preemption.

There are typically three types of conflicts regarding preemption: outright conflict, express preemption, and implied preemption. Outright conflict occurs when an ordinance directly opposes a state law. Express preemption occurs when a state law directly opposes a local power. Implied preemption occurs when one of three things happen: when a local ordinance prohibits an act permitted by the state legislature, when a local ordinance permits an act prohibited by the state legislature, or when there is clear legislative intent that the "field" is preempted by state law. The "field" is usually defined as when there is an extensive scope of state regulation that reflects a state intent to preempt all local regulations in a particular area.

In some cases, local ordinances will preempt state law. According to City of Riverside v. Island Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center Inc. (2013), if significant interests for a particular issue may vary from locality to locality, courts will presume that they should favor the validity of local ordinances against state preemption, unless the state statute expressly forbids the ordinance.

Judicial interpretation

In the United States, federal laws are superior to state laws and cannot be negated by the states. Federal laws are valid and controlling as long as they are consistent with the Constitution. 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. The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives federal courts authority over all cases "arising under this Constitution [or] the laws of the United States".

The interpretation of federal law to determine its consistency with the Constitution is inherently a judicial function. The Supreme Court first dealt with nullification in 1809 in the case of United States v. Georgia, where the Supreme Court rejected Georgia's attempt to nullify federal treaties with the Cherokees. The Court held that "according to the settled principles of our Constitution", the federal government had exclusive authority over Indian affairs, and thus Georgia's laws regulating Cherokee land were "void, as being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States".

The Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist No. 82, indicate that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies in the federal courts, not in the states. This is based on the need for uniformity and the federal government's need to effectively enforce its laws. The earliest assertion of the theories of nullification and interposition is found in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which were written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. These resolutions 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.

However, during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, Madison denounced as unconstitutional the concept of nullification of federal law by a state. He wrote that it was a "plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy". John Marshall also stated in the Virginia convention that protection against infringement of the Constitution would be provided by the federal courts. He argued that if Congress were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the federal judges as an infringement of the Constitution, and they would declare it void.

In summary, the judicial interpretation of the question of whether a state law can be unconstitutional centres on the role of the federal courts in determining the constitutionality of federal laws. The federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, have the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional if they conflict with the Constitution or federal treaties. While the states have asserted their right to interpret the Constitution through nullification and interposition, this concept has been denounced by Madison and other founding fathers, who believed that the final authority rests with the federal judiciary.

Supreme Court authority

The Supreme Court of the United States has the authority to declare state laws unconstitutional. This is a power that the Court has exercised since its early days, with cases dating back to the 19th century.

For example, in the 1819 case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the Supreme Court held that a New Hampshire law that altered a charter granted to a private corporation by the British Crown before the American Revolution violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution. Similarly, in the 1821 case of Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank v. Smith, the Court found that a Pennsylvania insolvency law violated the Contracts Clause by purporting to discharge a debtor from obligations contracted before the law was passed.

State laws can be deemed unconstitutional if they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, or if they infringe upon areas of federal power, such as foreign or interstate commerce. For instance, in New York v. United States (1992), the Court ruled that a portion of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act that gave certain powers to the Comptroller General violated the constitutional separation of powers.

The Supreme Court has also ruled on state laws that violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In one case, a Louisiana law that established a presumption of guilt for individuals systematically purchasing sugar at a lower price in that state than in other states was found to violate both of these clauses.

In summary, the Supreme Court has the authority to review state laws and determine whether they are consistent with the Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties, as well as whether they infringe upon areas of federal power. When state laws are found to be unconstitutional, they are deemed void and without legal effect.

Frequently asked questions