The Supreme Court: Congress And Unconstitutional Laws

The Supreme Court of the United States has held Acts of Congress to be unconstitutional in whole or in part. For example, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was deemed to exceed congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also found provisions of election law to violate the First Amendment's speech guarantees. In addition, there are concerns about whether Presidents must comply with and defend laws that they believe are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States can hold Acts of Congress unconstitutional

In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court held that provisions of election law that forbid a candidate or their immediate family from spending personal funds in excess of specified amounts violated the First Amendment's speech guarantees. The Court also found that the provisions of the law creating a commission to oversee enforcement of the Act were an invalid infringement of the constitutional separation of powers, as they devolved responsibilities upon a commission appointed and confirmed by Congress, rather than in compliance with the appointments clause.

In another case, the Supreme Court held that the Act of November 30, 1993, was unconstitutional.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act exceeded congressional power

Congress does not have the power to declare a law unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court of the United States can hold acts of Congress unconstitutional in whole or in part.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is an example of an act of Congress that was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The RFRA directed the use of the compelling interest test to determine the validity of laws of general applicability that substantially burden the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court found that the RFRA exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to "enforce" the Amendment by "appropriate legislation". However, the Supreme Court interpreted this power as not extending to defining the substance of the Amendment's restrictions. The RFRA appeared to do this by applying the compelling interest test to laws that substantially burden the free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court also found that the RFRA was "so far out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behaviour". This suggests that the RFRA was not a valid exercise of Congress's power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment because it went beyond what was necessary to prevent or remedy unconstitutional burdens on religious freedom.

In conclusion, the RFRA exceeded congressional power because it attempted to define the substance of the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions and went beyond what was necessary to prevent or remedy unconstitutional burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court's decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) illustrates the limits of congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting and enforcing those limits.

Presidents may be able to end-run the actions of Congress

Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to "enforce" the Fourteenth Amendment by "appropriate legislation" does not extend to defining the substance of the Amendment's restrictions. This was demonstrated in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was deemed to exceed congressional power.

In addition, provisions of election law that forbid a candidate or the members of his immediate family from expending personal funds in excess of specified amounts, that limit to $1,000 the independent expenditures of any person relative to an identified candidate, and that forbid expenditures by candidates for federal office in excess of specified amounts violate the First Amendment speech guarantees.

The Take Care provision grants Presidents wide discretion to disregard laws that they believe are unconstitutional, even when there are substantial arguments to the contrary. This means that Presidents may be able to end-run the actions of Congress. However, others suggest that Presidents may only refuse to comply with or defend laws when there is absolutely no credible constitutional defence of those provisions. Given that reasoned constitutional interpretation varies so widely, the latter may be the better route.

The Take Care provision grants Presidents wide discretion to disregard laws they believe are unconstitutional

The Take Care provision is part of Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution. It states that the President must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". This has been interpreted to mean that Presidents have a duty to uphold the Constitution and can therefore refuse to comply with or defend laws they believe are unconstitutional.

However, this interpretation is not universally accepted. Some argue that Presidents should only be able to refuse to comply with or defend a law when there is absolutely no credible constitutional defence of its provisions. This interpretation aims to prevent Presidents from having too much power and being able to easily disregard the actions of Congress.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held Acts of Congress to be unconstitutional in whole or in part on several occasions. For example, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly, provisions of election law have been found to violate First Amendment speech guarantees and infringe on the constitutional separation of powers.

Provisions of election law that forbid a candidate or their family from expending personal funds in excess of specified amounts violate the First Amendment

Congress does not have the power to declare a law unconstitutional. This power lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.

In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exceeded congressional power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that Congress's power under Section 5 to "enforce" the Fourteenth Amendment by "appropriate legislation" does not extend to defining the substance of the Amendment's restrictions.

Similarly, provisions of election law that forbid a candidate or their family from expending personal funds in excess of specified amounts violate the First Amendment's speech guarantees. The Supreme Court has ruled that such provisions of the law creating a commission to oversee enforcement of the Act are an invalid infringement of the constitutional separation of powers. The Court found that the appointments process for the commission, in which four of its six members are appointed by Congress and all six are confirmed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, is not in compliance with the appointments clause.

While Congress cannot declare a law unconstitutional, it is worth noting that there is debate around whether the President has wide discretion to disregard laws that they believe are unconstitutional. Some argue that the Take Care provision grants Presidents this discretion, even when there are substantial arguments to the contrary. Others suggest that Presidents may only refuse to comply with or defend laws when there is absolutely no credible constitutional defence of those provisions.

Frequently asked questions