Unconstitutional Laws: Enforced Or Not?

The question of whether an unconstitutional law can be enforced is a complex one and depends on various factors, including the specific circumstances of the case, the jurisdiction, and the legal system in place. In federal systems like the United States, the interaction between state and federal laws adds another layer of complexity. When a law is found to be unconstitutional, it means that it violates the fundamental principles outlined in a country's constitution, which serves as the supreme law. In the US, for example, the Supreme Court has the final say on whether a law is unconstitutional, but lower courts can also make such rulings, and their decisions can be appealed.

Can an Unconstitutional Law be Enforced?

Unconstitutional laws and federal law

In the United States, a law that is deemed unconstitutional is void and cannot be enforced. This is because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law that conflicts with it is null and void. The Supreme Court is the ultimate power in the federal court system and has the final say on whether a law is unconstitutional.

State or local laws that are held to be preempted by federal law are deemed void not because they contravene any provision of the Constitution but because they conflict with a federal statute, treaty, or the Supremacy Clause. For example, a Maryland law imposing a tax on notes issued by a branch of the Bank of the United States was held unconstitutional under the principle of national supremacy, which immunizes federal government instrumentalities from state taxation.

In some cases, a federal appeals court may allow a state to enforce a law that is later deemed unconstitutional by a lower court. This can occur when it is deemed too close to an election to stop the law from being enforced, as in the case of a Texas voter ID law. The Supreme Court may also decline to step in and block the enforcement of a law that is likely unconstitutional, as it did in cases from Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.

There are numerous examples of state laws that have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. These include laws that discriminate against minorities, impair the obligation of contracts, violate the Equal Protection Clause, or obstruct interstate commerce.

Unconstitutional laws and state law

The US Constitution gives the Supreme Court the ultimate power in the federal court system, allowing the Justices to control when lower courts put their decisions into effect. State laws that are deemed unconstitutional are void, not because they contravene any provision of the Constitution, but because they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through the operation of the Supremacy Clause.

There are several examples of state laws that have been held to be unconstitutional. For instance, in United States v. Peters (1809), a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the execution of any process issued to enforce a certain sentence of a federal court was deemed unconstitutional on the ground that the federal court lacked jurisdiction in the case. Similarly, in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), a Georgia statute annulling conveyance of public lands authorized by a prior enactment was found to violate the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.

In some cases, state laws have been found to be preempted by federal law, which means they conflict with a federal statute or treaty. For example, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), a Maryland law imposing a tax on notes issued by a branch of the Bank of the United States was held to be unconstitutional under the principle of national supremacy, which immunizes instrumentalities of the federal government from state taxation.

In addition to these examples, there are numerous other instances where state laws have been deemed unconstitutional, such as an Alabama law that created a cause of action by making the employer liable to the employee for injuries attributable to defective machinery, a Louisiana insolvency law with extraterritorial implications, and a South Carolina act regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages exclusively at state dispensaries, which unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce.

Unconstitutional laws and Supreme Court intervention

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, and it plays a crucial role in the country's constitutional system of government. Article III, Section I of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary, vesting the Supreme Court with the "judicial Power of the United States". The Court's original jurisdiction, established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, allows it to hear certain cases, such as suits between states or cases involving ambassadors. In one such instance, the Court used this jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law.

The Court also has appellate jurisdiction, allowing it to hear appeals on a wide range of cases involving constitutional or federal law. This includes cases where the United States is a party, those involving treaties, and admiralty cases. The Certiorari Act of 1925 further grants the Court discretion in choosing whether to hear these cases.

One of the most important roles of the Supreme Court is its power of judicial review, which enables it to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. This power was established in 1789, and it applies to both state laws and federal laws. For example, the Court has ruled that an Alabama law limiting an employee's right to sue in other states was inoperative due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court has also ruled on voting rights cases, such as those involving voter ID requirements in Texas, which were found to be discriminatory against minorities and in violation of the 24th Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decisions have a significant impact on society, as they protect civil rights and liberties and ensure that the majority cannot pass laws that harm or take advantage of minorities. The Court's intervention in cases of unconstitutional laws is essential for upholding the fundamental values of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.

Unconstitutional laws and voting

In the United States, federal laws govern voting rights, with states responsible for overseeing federal elections. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the ultimate power in the federal court system, allowing Justices to control when lower courts put their decisions into effect. This includes the ability to enforce or block unconstitutional laws.

The Supreme Court has been asked several times to determine when to allow states to implement new election procedures or continue enforcing existing ones. This has resulted in some laws being deemed unconstitutional and blocked, while others are allowed to stand. For example, a federal judge in Corpus Christi, Texas, ruled that a voter ID law was intentionally biased against black and Hispanic voters and barred its enforcement. The Supreme Court has also been involved in cases from Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, where new voter restrictions were being challenged.

Unconstitutional laws can sometimes be enforced if they are not successfully challenged or blocked in time. For instance, in Texas, a law with strict ID requirements for voting was allowed to remain in effect due to the proximity to the start of voting. While a federal judge had ruled that the law was passed with discriminatory intent, the Supreme Court did not intervene, and early voting started with the new law in place.

Federal laws have been instrumental in protecting voting rights and making it easier for citizens to vote. The Civil Rights Acts, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965, prohibited voter discrimination based on race, colour, or language minority status. This Act also required election materials to be provided in multiple languages and placed restrictions on states with a history of voter discrimination. The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 ensured that polling places were accessible to people with disabilities. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 authorized federal funding for elections and established the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to assist states in improving voter education, registration, and ballot standards.

Unconstitutional laws and racial bias

The United States Constitution, through the Equal Protection Clause, seeks to prevent states from discriminating against people based on race. Despite this, racial bias continues to exist in laws and their enforcement. This is evident in the historical and ongoing struggle to dismantle segregation in American society, including in education, employment, and government contracting.

One example of unconstitutional laws with racial bias is the case of Brown v. Board of Education, which was a turning point in the fight against governmentally imposed segregation in schools. Despite this landmark decision, racial discrimination in education persisted, as seen in the case of a majority-Haitian school that did not offer honors classes, while other schools in the district with fewer Haitian students offered advanced placement courses. This disparity in educational opportunities based on race is a form of unconstitutional racial discrimination.

Another example is the case of Loving v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court held that laws prohibiting interracial marriages violated the Equal Protection Clause. While the original purpose was to protect African Americans from discrimination, the broad wording has led to a debate about whether it is unconstitutional for governments to consider race as a positive factor in university admissions, employment, and government contracting. This debate highlights the complex nature of racial bias in law enforcement, as some argue that race-conscious measures designed to address past discrimination can themselves be discriminatory.

In addition to explicit racial bias in laws, there is also the issue of implicit racial bias, which refers to unconscious racially biased decisions made by individuals who outwardly profess to hold race-neutral views. This form of bias is difficult to prove in court, as it requires demonstrating discriminatory intent. As a result, there have been calls to revise the standard for proving unconstitutional racial discrimination to include discriminatory negligence, where an actor should have been aware that their actions created an unwarranted risk of harm and fell below the established standard for equal treatment.

While the Supreme Court has the ultimate power in the federal court system to enforce the Constitution, there are challenges in ensuring that unconstitutional laws, especially those with racial bias, are not enforced. This is evident in cases like Texas, where a federal judge ruled that a voter ID law was passed with the intention to discriminate against minorities and violated the Constitution's 24th Amendment. However, due to the proximity to elections, the law was still enforced, highlighting the complex interplay between judicial rulings and practical implementation.

Frequently asked questions