Can American States Refuse to Follow Federal Law?

When discussing the relationship between federal and state laws in the United States, it's important to understand the dynamics at play. This article aims to clarify whether states can refuse to follow federal laws and delve into the historical and constitutional frameworks governing this relationship.

The Evolution of Federal Marijuana Laws

The debate over marijuana legalization is a classic example of the tension between federal and state laws. Historically, the federal government viewed marijuana as an illegal substance, but the pendulum has shifted in recent years. Currently, federal law still deems marijuana possession a felony, yet some states have legalize it for medical or recreational purposes.

The Context in Texas

One prominent example of this tension is currently playing out in Texas, where the state government is challenging the Biden administration's stance on immigration. The governor of Texas and other Republican leaders are rallying against what they perceive as an open border policy. This political opposition highlights how states can assert their stance in matters of federal policy.

State Rights and the 10th Amendment

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is often cited in discussions about state versus federal authority. It declares that any powers not explicitly assigned to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. This means that states have the authority to define and enforce laws that align with their own values, even if these laws contradict federal statutes.

Key Examples of State Authority

Gun Control: States cannot pass laws regarding gun control because this power is explicitly granted to the federal government by the Second Amendment. Gay Marriage: Before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), some states had passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. These laws were ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the federal government's role in ensuring certain rights apply across all states.

State Non-Enforcement of Federal Laws

While states can define and enforce laws according to their own values, this does not necessarily mean they are required to enforce federal laws at all times. For instance, many states that have legalized marijuana on the state level do not actively enforce federal drug laws. In such cases, federal authorities may still arrest individuals for federal offenses, even if they do not face state charges.

Nullification Theory

The concept of "nullification" suggests that states have the power to invalidate a federal law within their own borders. This idea is rooted in the belief that states have inherent sovereignty and can declare federal laws unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has consistently rejected the nullification theory, upholding the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that federal laws take precedence over state laws.

State Legislation Ignoring Federal Law

States can pass laws that do not align with federal mandates, but these laws are not enforceable. The federal government has the authority to ignore such legislation if it deems it non-compliant or outdated. This distinction highlights the inherent tension between state and federal sovereignty.

Legislative Process for Federal Laws

It's essential to understand how federal laws are created. Bills are proposed by members of Congress, typically in the House of Representatives or the Senate. Once a bill is passed by both chambers, it is sent to the President for approval. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law. If the President vetoes the bill, Congress can attempt to override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses.

Conclusion

While states have significant autonomy in defining and enforcing laws within their borders, they cannot refuse to follow federal laws. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution mandates that federal laws take precedence over state laws. The concept of nullification, while theoretically intriguing, has not been embraced by the Supreme Court and is thus not a viable legal mechanism for states to invalidate federal laws.