Congress's Power: Can They Nullify State Laws?

The Supremacy Clause is a conflict-of-laws rule that specifies that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law. In other words, it can be used to nullify state laws. However, the Supremacy Clause only applies when federal authority is expressed in the Constitution itself, and the federal and state governments must stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. In the case of California v. ARC America Corp., the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action.

The Supremacy Clause

In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute". In effect, this means that a state law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist: Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible; or "State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress".

In the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action.

Federal law takes priority over state law

The Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, albeit only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. This means that no matter what the federal or state governments might wish to do, they must stay within the boundaries of the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause follows Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor of the Constitution, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the [Congress], on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them".

In the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action.

State law can be nullified if it conflicts with federal law

In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute". This means that a state law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist: Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or "State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress".

In the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action.

The Supremacy Clause also nullifies federal law that is in conflict with the Constitution, although this is disputed.

State law can be nullified if it conflicts with the Constitution

The Supremacy Clause also assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, as long as that authority is expressed in the Constitution. This means that both the federal and state governments must stay within the boundaries of the Constitution, and if a state law violates the Supremacy Clause, it will be found to be unconstitutional. For example, in California v. ARC America Corp. (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause and nullify the state action.

However, it is important to note that not all state laws can be nullified by federal law. In the case of Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana (1981), the Supreme Court disagreed with the argument that the Montana tax on sub-bituminous coal "frustrated" the broad goals of federal energy policy. The Court stated that appeals to "national policy" were insufficient to overturn a state law under the Supremacy Clause unless the nature of the regulated subject matter or Congress's actions clearly indicated otherwise.

Additionally, while states cannot nullify federal law, they can pass laws that provide for the non-enforcement of federal laws within their borders. This is known as "nullification" and has been attempted by several states, such as Kansas with its "Second Amendment Protection Act". However, these attempts have been challenged in federal court as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a state law can be void if it conflicts with a valid Federal statute

Congress cannot nullify a state law, but the Supreme Court can rule a state law void if it conflicts with a valid Federal statute. This is known as the Supremacy Clause, which is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law.

The Supremacy Clause follows Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor of the Constitution, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the [Congress], on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them". As a constitutional provision identifying the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, albeit only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.

The Supremacy Clause has been applied in several cases, including Ware v. Hylton in 1796, where the Court ruled that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. In United States v. Schooner Peggy in 1801, the Court ruled in favour of a private citizen's lawsuit against the government on the basis of a treaty, elaborating on the supreme nature of ratified treaties. In California v. ARC America Corp. in 1989, the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action.

In Edgar v. MITE Corp. in 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute". This means that a state law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist: compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

Frequently asked questions