The State Vs Federal Law: Who Wins?

Nullification is a constitutional theory that individual states can invalidate federal laws or judicial decisions they deem unconstitutional. It has been a controversial topic since its inception in early American history. The theory of nullification was set forth by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798. Nullification supporters 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. However, federal courts have consistently rejected this theory, holding that the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. The Supreme Court has also rejected nullification attempts in several decisions, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.

The Supremacy Clause

The US Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting and applying the Supremacy Clause. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821), the Court held that the Supremacy Clause and Article III grant it the ultimate power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and federal laws. This gives the Supreme Court the final say in matters of federal law and constitutional interpretation, allowing it to overrule state court decisions.

While nullification supporters argue that states have the inherent right to declare federal laws unconstitutional, courts at both the state and federal levels, including the US Supreme Court, have consistently rejected this theory. The Supremacy Clause has been cited in decisions affirming that federal law is superior to state law, and that the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution.

State sovereignty

The concept of state sovereignty in the context of nullification refers to the idea that individual states possess the authority to invalidate or nullify federal laws, treaties, or judicial decisions that they deem unconstitutional. This theory, known as "nullification," asserts that states have the power to reject federal laws that exceed the federal government's constitutional powers.

The theory of nullification was first introduced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Jefferson, outraged by the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress and signed by President John Adams, anonymously drafted the Kentucky Resolutions, declaring the acts unconstitutional and void within the state of Kentucky. Madison authored the Virginia Resolutions, which took a more moderate approach, asserting the right of "interposition," which meant announcing the laws' unconstitutionality to the public.

Supporters of nullification argue that it is inherent in the nature of the federal system and the concept of state sovereignty. They contend that before the Constitution was ratified, states functioned as separate nations. Thus, they view the Constitution as a compact among the states, delegating certain powers to the federal government while retaining all other powers for themselves. According to this interpretation, states have the inherent right to judge compliance with the compact and declare federal laws unconstitutional if they exceed the delegated powers.

However, the theory of nullification has been consistently rejected by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The courts have upheld the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which establishes the priority of federal law over state law. The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, states that the Constitution, federal laws made in pursuance thereof, and treaties made under the authority of the United States are the "supreme Law of the Land." This clause ensures that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws, and the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws rests with the federal courts, not the states.

Interposition

The theory of interposition is grounded in the text of the Tenth Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, interposition asserts that a state may interpose itself between the federal government and the people of the state by taking action to prevent the federal government from enforcing laws that the state considers unconstitutional.

In practice, the terms nullification and interposition have often been used indistinguishably. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which declared the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional and altogether void and of no force in the state of Kentucky, have been cited as an example of both nullification and interposition. The Virginia Resolutions of 1798, also in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, opted for the more moderate right of "interposition," merely announcing the laws' unconstitutionality to the public without explicitly declaring them null and void.

Despite the arguments of supporters, the courts have consistently held that the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal judiciary, not the states, and that the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. The Supreme Court of the United States explicitly rejected interposition in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), holding that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies with the federal judiciary, not with the states.

Jury nullification

Nullification is a constitutional theory that states can invalidate federal laws or judicial decisions deemed unconstitutional. The theory was first introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1798 in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by President John Adams. The Acts gave the president the power to deport aliens deemed a threat to national security and criminalized speech critical of the federal government. In Jefferson's view, the Constitution was a "compact" among states that delegated a set of limited powers to the federal government.

The idea of nullification has been rejected by federal courts, which maintain that the Constitution was not a contract among the states, but established directly by the people. The power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, and the states do not have the power to nullify them.

State rejection of federal law

Nullification is a constitutional theory that individual states can invalidate federal laws or judicial decisions they deem unconstitutional. The theory of nullification was set forth by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798. In these resolutions, Jefferson and Madison argued that the Constitution was a "compact" among the states that delegated a set of limited powers to the federal government. This meant that "every state" had the power to "nullify of their own authority" any violation of the Constitution.

However, the theory of nullification has been rejected by state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The courts have held that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that 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.

Despite this, there have been several notable attempts by states to nullify federal laws throughout American history. In addition to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, there was the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833, where South Carolina passed an Ordinance of Nullification declaring two federal tariffs "null, void, and no law" because they disproportionately burdened southern states. More recently, in 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to "reject" a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2006, Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative that sought to "freeze" state law to prevent state courts from following a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The act of state rejection of federal law has both practical and theoretical consequences for our understanding of federal courts' influence on state law. It provides a playbook for state decision-makers seeking to extend, supplement, or transcend the limitations of federal law. In an era of increasing clashes between courts and legislatures, rejecting federal caselaw is one way that democratic majorities can reduce the practical impact of federal court decisions.

Frequently asked questions