Unconstitutional Laws: Whole Or Just Offending Part?

The Supreme Court of the United States has deemed laws unconstitutional in whole or in part. The table of unconstitutional laws includes cases that invalidate federal laws, state constitutional or statutory provisions, and local laws. For instance, a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the execution of any process issued to enforce a federal court sentence was deemed unconstitutional in United States v. Peters (1809). In 1917, a Kentucky act that amended a previous act to allow a county to avoid collecting taxes to repay bond judgment debt was also deemed unconstitutional. In some cases, laws are deemed preempted by federal law, such as in the case of District of Columbia statutes enacted by Congress, which are treated as federal statutes.

State laws can be deemed unconstitutional

There are several examples of state laws being deemed unconstitutional. In the case of United States v. Peters (1809), a Pennsylvania statute was ruled unconstitutional as it attempted to nullify the judgment of a federal court, which a state law cannot do. Another example is the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where a Maryland law imposing a tax on notes issued by a branch of the Bank of the United States was deemed unconstitutional as it violated the principle of national supremacy, which states that the Federal Government is immune from state taxation.

State laws can also be deemed unconstitutional if they violate specific clauses of the Constitution, such as the Contracts Clause or the Due Process Clause. For instance, in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), a Georgia statute was found to violate the Contracts Clause by annulling the conveyance of public lands authorized by a prior enactment. Similarly, a Texas law was deemed unconstitutional as it violated the Due Process Clause by imposing a license tax on an out-of-state corporation based on its authorized capital stock.

In some cases, state laws may be preempted by federal law, meaning they are void because they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, even if they do not directly contravene any provision of the Constitution. This is known as the Supremacy Clause.

Federal laws can be deemed unconstitutional

For example, in the case of *New York v. United States* (1992), the Supreme Court found that a portion of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers. Specifically, the Act gave the Comptroller General—a position subject to congressional control—a role in executing the laws. This case demonstrates that even federal laws are subject to review and can be struck down if they conflict with the Constitution.

In another case, *Bartnicki v. Vopper* (2001), the Supreme Court held that a federal prohibition on the disclosure of illegally intercepted electronic communications violated the First Amendment. The Court balanced the government's interest in protecting private communication against the public's interest in matters of public concern, ultimately ruling in favor of the latter. This case illustrates that federal laws can be deemed unconstitutional if they infringe on the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Additionally, in *Stern v. Marshall* (2011), the Supreme Court addressed a counterclaim of tortious interference with a gift made during a bankruptcy proceeding. The Court found that the claim fell outside the scope of public rights exceptions allowing for Article III jurisdiction and was instead a state common-law claim. This decision highlights that federal laws or proceedings must align with the Constitution's delineation of powers and cannot overstep their jurisdictional boundaries.

Furthermore, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 was also deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extend to defining the substance of the Amendment's restrictions. The RFRA was found to exceed congressional power by defining and enforcing a particular interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case underscores the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and the limits of congressional authority.

In summary, these cases demonstrate that federal laws can indeed be deemed unconstitutional, either in whole or in part, by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court carefully scrutinizes laws to ensure they comply with the Constitution, including its protections of individual freedoms and its delineation of powers. This judicial review process helps maintain the integrity of the Constitution and protect the rights of citizens.

Local laws can be deemed unconstitutional

One example is the case of United States v. Peters (1809), where a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the enforcement of a federal court sentence was deemed unconstitutional. The law sought to annul the judgment of a US court, which was deemed to have no legal foundation. Similarly, in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), a Georgia statute that annulled the conveyance of public lands authorized by a prior enactment was found to violate the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution.

In some cases, local laws can be deemed unconstitutional due to conflicts with federal statutes or treaties. This is known as preemption, where state or local laws are void if they conflict with federal law, even if they do not directly contravene any provision of the Constitution. An example is the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where a Maryland law imposing a tax on notes issued by a branch of the Bank of the United States was held unconstitutional due to the principle of national supremacy, which immunizes federal government instrumentalities from state taxation.

Local laws can also be deemed unconstitutional if they impose unreasonable burdens on interstate commerce. For instance, a Missouri regulation that required interstate trains to stop at points where adequate accommodations were already provided was found to impose an invalid burden on interstate commerce. Similarly, a Kansas law imposed conditions on foreign corporations engaged in interstate commerce, requiring them to obtain a license and submit financial statements to do business in the state, which was deemed an unconstitutional burden.

In summary, local laws can be deemed unconstitutional if they conflict with federal law, violate constitutional provisions, or impose unreasonable burdens on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution, ensuring that local laws across the United States adhere to its principles.

The Supreme Court can deem laws unconstitutional

Another example is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act case of 1993, where the Court held that the Act exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that the Act's use of the compelling interest test to validate laws that substantially burden the free exercise of religion was an overreach of Congress's power to "enforce" the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court can also deem state laws unconstitutional. For instance, in the case of United States v. Peters (1809), the Court ruled that a Pennsylvania statute that prohibited the execution of any process to enforce a federal court sentence was without legal foundation as it attempted to annul the judgment of a US court.

In another case, Fletcher v. Peck (1810), the Court found that a Georgia statute annulling the conveyance of public lands authorized by a prior enactment violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10) of the Constitution.

These examples demonstrate that the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws or parts of laws that are deemed to be unconstitutional, thereby upholding the integrity of the Constitution and protecting the rights of individuals and states.

The Constitution can be used to challenge laws

The U.S. Constitution is the nation's fundamental law, codifying the core values of the people. It is the responsibility of the courts to interpret the Constitution's meaning, as well as the meaning of any laws passed by Congress. If a law passed by Congress conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution takes precedence.

Courts play an integral role in maintaining the rule of law, particularly when they hear the grievances voiced by minority groups or those with minority opinions. The Bill of Rights, for example, was passed because concepts such as freedom of religion, speech, equal treatment, and due process of law were deemed so important that not even a majority should be allowed to change them without a Constitutional Amendment.

When challenging a statute's constitutionality, it is essential to understand the complexities involved, as it differs from other types of lawsuits. These cases often carry broader societal implications, impacting the enforceability of a law for the entire population. Consequently, the standard of proof in constitutional cases is higher, reflecting the weight of potentially overturning established legislation.

Initiating a challenge to a statute's constitutionality typically requires professional assistance from a seasoned constitutional lawyer. The process starts with filing a complaint in federal court, clearly identifying the statute being challenged and explaining how it infringes on constitutional rights. One critical factor in such cases is demonstrating personal harm caused by the statute, referred to as "standing." Courts generally mandate that plaintiffs have standing, meaning they are personally affected by the law. Another critical concept is "ripeness," which means that the harm caused by the law must be either actual or imminent, not hypothetical or speculative.

Frequently asked questions