Unconstitutional Laws: Can Congress Overstep Their Boundaries?

The United States Constitution plays a pivotal role in shaping federal law, and the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting it. While the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is generally considered final, there have been instances where Congress has passed laws deemed unconstitutional by the Court. Notably, Congress's power to regulate commerce allows it to extend constitutional principles and achieve its goals without directly amending the Constitution. This dynamic between the Supreme Court and Congress is an intentional part of the US government's design, with the Constitution acting as a check on Congress's power.

Supreme Court's role in limiting Congress

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, and it plays a crucial role in limiting the powers of Congress. It ensures that each branch of the government, including Congress, recognises the limits of its power. The Supreme Court has the final say on whether a law is protected by or violates the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which allows it to strike down laws passed by Congress that are deemed unconstitutional. This power is derived from Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the federal judiciary and vests the Supreme Court with judicial power. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over certain cases, such as suits between states or cases involving ambassadors. It also has appellate jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, including those involving constitutional or federal law.

One notable example of the Supreme Court limiting Congress's power is the case of City of Boerne v. Flores (1997). In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exceeded Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Act directed the use of the compelling interest test to determine the validity of laws that substantially burden the free exercise of religion. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's power under Section 5 does not extend to defining the substance of the Amendment's restrictions.

In another case, Stern v. Marshall (2011), the Supreme Court held that a counterclaim of tortious interference with a gift during a bankruptcy proceeding did not fall under the public rights exceptions allowing for the exercise of Article III jurisdiction. This decision limited Congress's ability to expand the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain types of cases.

The Supreme Court also plays a crucial role in protecting civil rights and liberties. For instance, in Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), the Court ruled that a federal prohibition on disclosing the contents of illegally intercepted electronic communications violated the First Amendment. The Court balanced privacy concerns against the public interest in publishing matters of public importance, ultimately prioritising freedom of speech.

Congress's ability to override Court decisions

The U.S. Constitution establishes a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances, dividing the government into three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws, subject to a presidential veto, and the President is charged with executing those laws.

The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the country, has the final say in interpreting the Constitution and federal laws. This power allows the Court to check the other branches of government. When a court makes a final judgment, it decides on the issues in a case, and these decisions bind the parties and settle disputes.

Congress cannot directly overturn a federal court decision, especially when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, as the judiciary is tasked with the final interpretation of laws. However, Congress can respond to court decisions by passing new legislation or amending existing laws, as long as these changes are constitutional. For example, when the Supreme Court concluded that the Equal Protection Clause only prohibits discrimination by government entities and not private entities, Congress used its power to regulate commerce to extend non-discrimination to the private sector.

Congress can also propose amendments to the Constitution to overturn judicial interpretations, but this requires a rigorous approval process, including approval by two-thirds of both houses and ratification by three-fourths of the states. This ensures that while the judiciary remains an independent arbiter of the law, the legislative branch can still address and respond to judicial decisions within constitutional boundaries.

In summary, while Congress cannot directly reverse a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution, it can attempt to achieve similar goals through other means, such as passing new legislation or amending existing laws that address the issues raised by the Court's decision.

Constitutional right to prevent laws

The US Constitution plays a critical role in federal law, and its interpretation is generally considered final. However, the Supreme Court does not always have the final say, and Congress can check the Court's power.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate the manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. For instance, in the 1921 case of Newberry v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a provision in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act was not supported by Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court also plays a role in striking down laws passed by Congress that violate Constitutional rights. For example, if Congress were to pass a law that discriminates against people of color, the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional, as the Constitution prohibits governments from discriminating on the basis of race.

In addition, the Supreme Court has held that certain Acts of Congress are unconstitutional in whole or in part. 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, in Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), the Court held that a federal prohibition on disclosing the contents of illegally intercepted electronic communications violated the First Amendment.

When Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, it can directly override it by proposing an amendment to the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. However, this is a challenging process that has not been successfully completed in over 30 years. Alternatively, Congress can achieve its goals without amending the Constitution by enacting statutes that extend constitutional principles through its enumerated powers.

Congress's power to regulate commerce

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make laws, subject to a Presidential veto. The Commerce Clause, or Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, grants Congress the authority to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes". This clause has been a source of significant and ongoing controversy, with debates over the interpretation of the word "commerce" and the extent of congressional power it grants.

The Commerce Clause has been used by Congress to justify exercising legislative power over state activities and their citizens, leading to a shift in the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting and defining the scope of the Commerce Clause. In the early 20th century, the Court primarily viewed the clause as limiting state power rather than a source of federal power, with most cases stemming from state legislation.

During the 1930s, the Supreme Court heard an increasing number of cases on Congress's power to regulate commerce, resulting in a marked evolution of its jurisprudence on the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Court began to recognise broader grounds for using the Commerce Clause to regulate state activity, holding that any activity with a "substantial economic effect" on interstate commerce or a "cumulative effect" on such commerce could be regulated under this clause. This shift in interpretation gave Congress greater leeway in exercising its legislative power.

However, in United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court attempted to curtail Congress's broad mandate under the Commerce Clause by adopting a more conservative interpretation. In this case, the Court held that Congress's power was limited to regulating the channels and instrumentalities of commerce and actions that substantially affect interstate commerce. Despite this, the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause has continued to evolve, and it has returned to a more liberal construction in certain cases, such as Gonzales v. Raich, where it upheld federal regulation of intrastate marijuana production.

Supreme Court's final say on laws

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the US and plays a critical role in all matters of federal law. It has the power to interpret and say what the law is, and its opinion is generally final when interpreting the Constitution. However, Congress can check the court when it interprets a federal statute, which it can more readily amend.

When the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Congress can only override its interpretation by proposing an amendment to the Constitution, which must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This is a difficult task and has not been achieved in over 30 years.

In some cases, Congress can achieve the same goal without amending the Constitution by enacting statutes that extend constitutional principles through one of its enumerated powers. For example, when the Supreme Court concluded that the Equal Protection Clause only prohibits discrimination by government entities and not private entities, Congress used its power to regulate commerce to extend non-discrimination laws to the private sector.

The Supreme Court has held several Acts of Congress to be unconstitutional in whole or in part. For example, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Stern v. Marshall (2011), the Court held that a counterclaim of tortious interference with a gift during a bankruptcy proceeding was a state common law claim that did not fall under any public rights exceptions allowing for the exercise of Article III jurisdiction.

While the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is generally final, there are no consequences for Congress if a law is struck down by the Court. This is due, in part, to the Speech or Debate Clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1), which provides immunity to members of Congress for their legislative acts.

Frequently asked questions