Federal authorities don’t enforce state laws - states do. If there’s a case in a state court that challenges the Constitutionality of a law, it’d go through a pretty long process of appeals before it gets to SCOTUS. At some point, yes - that case would hit a federal appeals court, but said court has nothing to do with enforcing the laws. They’d just adjudicate on the question of Constiutionality.
Sort of. But it has to go through a lengthy appeals process first - state court, state Supreme Court, federal appeals courts, and then SCOTUS (I may have missed a step). SCOTUS also doesn’t have to take up the case if it goes past the appeals court. If they don’t take the case, the decision of the last court that rules stands.
SCOTUS doesn’t “abolish the law” *per se*. They tell the state that either the law itself, or the penalty, is unconstitutional. They will either strike down the law in its entirety, or remand the case back to the state to fix the law so it’s Constitutional.
The law would either go from (1) state court to intermediate state appellate court (if there is one) to state Supreme Court to SCOTUS *or* (2) federal district court to federal circuit court to SCOTUS. SCOTUS can hear appeals from state Supreme Court rulings or federal circuit court rulings.
It’d be very unlikely to go from state Supreme Court to federal circuit court and then to SCOTUS. Offhand, I can’t think of a situation where that’s even possible. A state Supreme Court ruling could later be challenged through a ruling in a federal district court, which would then go through the circuit court to SCOTUS. But that’s not an appeal of the same case.
> It’d be very unlikely to go from state Supreme Court to federal circuit court and then to SCOTUS. Offhand, I can’t think of a situation where that’s even possible. A state Supreme Court ruling could later be challenged through a ruling in a federal district court, which would then go through the circuit court to SCOTUS. But that’s not an appeal of the same case.
I'm not sure it ever has happened, but in case with a mix of federal and state issues, the federal court could refer a question of state law to the high court of the state. In theory, I think you would then appeal that ruling up through the federal courts to the Supreme Court. But there would need to be a constitutional issue with the state high court ruling, since the US Supreme Court cannot overrule a state high court as to a matter of state law, it can only do if the ruling violates the Federal Constitution.
That's correct, but I didn't include it because that wouldn't be a case starting in the state courts.
Now I'm wondering if it's possible to seek SCOTUS certiorari of a ruling by a SSC on a certified question, or if the party has to wait for the federal court to rule.
Thanks for the correction. My understanding is really just "local court where case is first adjudicated --> somethingsomethingsomething --> SCOTUS." Thanks for helping clear this up for me.
The laws are not abolished. They stay on the books, but are not enforceable. See the Arizona abortion law. [https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/arizona-abortion-ban-senate-vote/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/arizona-abortion-ban-senate-vote/index.html)
And states will often clean up their laws to remove statutes that have been ruled unconstitutional. And in states with a codification of their laws, not sure how that works in different states, when a law has been ruled unconstitutional.
But I agree with you, the Federal courts can't force a State Legislature to repeal a law.
The courts can't actually change any written laws. State or Federal. They can be rendered unenforceable, but it's up to the legislature to actually make changes. The courts cannot force the legislature actually do anything though.
There are plenty of 'dead' laws on the books at all levels of government because legislatures rarely prioritize cleaning up the legal code to any great extent
Future rulings that reverse past rulings can reactivate these dead laws as we have seen very recently with Roe vs Wade
No. Federal authorities don't enforce state law. And most laws are challenged by the people, not the government. If a state passes a law that is preempted by federal law and try enforce it against me, I will sue to challenge the law.
Abolished in the sense that they cannot be enforced as currently written, I guess yeah. But like, state code § 30.657 or whatever will still point to the old law until/if the state does something about it.
I can't imagine a scenario where 40 states that have the political willpower to do this don't have the necessary Federal representation to make it legal nationally
I present marijuana. Nearly 40 states have it legalized or decriminalized and the feds haven’t done crap yet. By this point in prohibition they had already reversed course.
Prohibited is an incorrect word. Disused would be more appropriate. And from what I understand this only affects med. there’s like 26 recreationally legal states and another 5 or so that are decriminalized.
Yes they can, but it's not the administration in DC that they wait on before enforcing - it's the makeup of the Supreme Court they wait until favorable. That's what happened with abortion - some states passed laws waiting for the Court to get enough Conservative majority to be favorable before enforcing. And some states had old laws still on the books that were not enforced until recently.
A coalition of 40 states has the ability to call for and pass a constitutional ammendment via a constitutional convention. If they really wanted to make something legal they could easily override an executive veto or supreme court strike down.
But 40 states passing laws that are different from federal laws is not a Constitutional Convention. That's a different topic than what OP is asking about.
That might not necessarily work. A state court might strike down the law because it is not constitutional. If not the state court, then the SCOTUS. The judiciary can always check the legislative.
The courts ruling a law is unconditional does not remove the law. Only the legislature can do that. It only means that the law is no longer enforceable.
And they don't rule on laws just for fun. A case has to brought to them before they can make any ruling.
..i mean..why didn't that happen with the marijuana think in CA? that was against the fed gov..passed in 1996, and then they just waited until obama, i mean they had to wait a lot time for that (republican president bush 2000-2008), and then in 2016 did the marijuana legalization
Because it's not unconstitutional. Congress for the most cannot force a state to make something illegal. Congress can still act on their own and treat something as illegal, but the state need not alter their law to correspond.
so the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970..because it..is a what, statute or something, they state can go against it? because it isn't in the bill of rights and so on
It's a federal statute, yes. It makes controlled substances a federal crime, yes. However, it does not alter state law, especially not state criminal law. The 10th Amendment gives the state policing power, meaning they have control over criminal law. As long as the criminal law does not do anything unconstitutional (e.g. cruel and unusual punishment), the federal government can't force the state to act.
Contrast that with the 18th Amendment, which constitutionally outlawed liquor. There, the state had to comply because to allow liquor would be unconstitutional.
..i mean..is it basically that you have federal constitutional law..and then federal statue law..which fed constitutional law allows the fed gov to make..but..then the state can go against fed statute law, but, not fed constitutional law?
They are different jurisdictions. States enforce state laws, the federal government enforces federal laws. So a state that passes a law allowing marijuana will not arrest people for marijuana charges. But the federal government can. And in the example given by u/deep_sea2 about *Gonzales v. Raich*, that's exactly what happened. California allowed medical marijuana at the time, but it was still illegal under federal laws. It was federal criminal charges, not state criminal charges.
And just because there are laws does not mean they will be enforced. The Executive branch (President and his cabinet) decide how the laws will be enforced, and for the last several years, have not been charging people with crimes for marijuana if they were obeying state laws, and did not transport it across state lines. But other laws that are different between fed and state they still enforce.
Because the state enforces state laws and the feds enforce federal laws. just because a state might pass a law to make something legal that is illegal by a federal law does not mean that no one can be arrested by federal law enforcement and charged with a federal crime. Federal law enforcement can still enforce federal law even if it goes against state laws.
you said that SCOTUS can invalidate the state law if the state law goes against what the constitution allows the fed gov to do, wasn't the act in 1970 passed under the clause that the fed gov had the right to "regulate commerce"..so, if a state passes a law against that, doesn't that interfere/contradict the fed gov constitutional right to regulate commerce..and then SCOTUS strikes down the state law?
Yes, they can regulate commerce. That's why they can still arrest people in legal states as held in *Gonzales v. Raich*. However, the commerce clause does not force states to alter their criminal law. Although the SCOTUS said that those in a legal state could be charged under federal law, it in no way said that the local law had to be changed to correspond with federal law.
The federal government can control commerce, but the state is not required to make their own law to assist the federal government in doing so. If the federal government wants to control commerce, they may have to do so alone. The state can't stop the federal government (e.g. ban the DEA from entering the state, shut down federal courthouses), but the state does not have to help either.
..i mean..is it basically that you have federal constitutional law..and then federal statue law..which fed constitutional law allows the fed gov to make..but..then the state can go against fed statute law, but, not fed constitutional law?
You are close.
Federal law and state law are separate and each are enforced by the respective governments. The feds can't directly force the states to enforce federal law if they don't want to. They can apply indirect pressure though (no federal highway funds to any state that has a drinking age of less than 21)
Constitutional amendments are federal, but after the 14th amendment courts have ruled that many of the amendments are applicable to the states under the incorporation doctrine. But this has been handled on a case by case over time, so not all of the rights granted by amendments have been incorporated to apply to the states but many have.
If a right has not been incorporated, then it only applies to the federal government, but not the state government. If a right has been incorporated, it applies to both.
As to which rights have been incorporated and which have not, and what is likely to incorporated if brought to the Supreme Court? That's a question for a constitutional lawyer. At this point I would say that most of the bill of rights has been incorporated, but it's a question that is legitimately difficult to answer as they courts usually don't make sweeping ruling like "the first amendment now applies fully to the states". They make a bunch of specific rules that say "in this specific instance, this right granted by the first amendment does apply to the state" and that's how over time these rights become incorporated.
Because President Obama directed the DOJ to not enforce or prosecute federal marijuana laws. Technically, possessing and using marijuana is still a federal crime, regardless of whether a state overturns their own laws on it. CA and other states knew that marijuana users would get a “hall pass” from the feds for breaking the law in his area.
People can write all sorts of stuff that is wrong. The federal government can’t force states to enforce federal law. It’s called the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Federal authorities don’t enforce state laws - states do. If there’s a case in a state court that challenges the Constitutionality of a law, it’d go through a pretty long process of appeals before it gets to SCOTUS. At some point, yes - that case would hit a federal appeals court, but said court has nothing to do with enforcing the laws. They’d just adjudicate on the question of Constiutionality.
..somebody wrote that SCOTUS can literally force a state to abolish state laws if it deems them "unconstitutional"?
Sort of. But it has to go through a lengthy appeals process first - state court, state Supreme Court, federal appeals courts, and then SCOTUS (I may have missed a step). SCOTUS also doesn’t have to take up the case if it goes past the appeals court. If they don’t take the case, the decision of the last court that rules stands. SCOTUS doesn’t “abolish the law” *per se*. They tell the state that either the law itself, or the penalty, is unconstitutional. They will either strike down the law in its entirety, or remand the case back to the state to fix the law so it’s Constitutional.
The law would either go from (1) state court to intermediate state appellate court (if there is one) to state Supreme Court to SCOTUS *or* (2) federal district court to federal circuit court to SCOTUS. SCOTUS can hear appeals from state Supreme Court rulings or federal circuit court rulings. It’d be very unlikely to go from state Supreme Court to federal circuit court and then to SCOTUS. Offhand, I can’t think of a situation where that’s even possible. A state Supreme Court ruling could later be challenged through a ruling in a federal district court, which would then go through the circuit court to SCOTUS. But that’s not an appeal of the same case.
> It’d be very unlikely to go from state Supreme Court to federal circuit court and then to SCOTUS. Offhand, I can’t think of a situation where that’s even possible. A state Supreme Court ruling could later be challenged through a ruling in a federal district court, which would then go through the circuit court to SCOTUS. But that’s not an appeal of the same case. I'm not sure it ever has happened, but in case with a mix of federal and state issues, the federal court could refer a question of state law to the high court of the state. In theory, I think you would then appeal that ruling up through the federal courts to the Supreme Court. But there would need to be a constitutional issue with the state high court ruling, since the US Supreme Court cannot overrule a state high court as to a matter of state law, it can only do if the ruling violates the Federal Constitution.
That's correct, but I didn't include it because that wouldn't be a case starting in the state courts. Now I'm wondering if it's possible to seek SCOTUS certiorari of a ruling by a SSC on a certified question, or if the party has to wait for the federal court to rule.
Thanks for the correction. My understanding is really just "local court where case is first adjudicated --> somethingsomethingsomething --> SCOTUS." Thanks for helping clear this up for me.
The laws are not abolished. They stay on the books, but are not enforceable. See the Arizona abortion law. [https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/arizona-abortion-ban-senate-vote/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/arizona-abortion-ban-senate-vote/index.html)
And states will often clean up their laws to remove statutes that have been ruled unconstitutional. And in states with a codification of their laws, not sure how that works in different states, when a law has been ruled unconstitutional. But I agree with you, the Federal courts can't force a State Legislature to repeal a law.
The courts can't actually change any written laws. State or Federal. They can be rendered unenforceable, but it's up to the legislature to actually make changes. The courts cannot force the legislature actually do anything though. There are plenty of 'dead' laws on the books at all levels of government because legislatures rarely prioritize cleaning up the legal code to any great extent Future rulings that reverse past rulings can reactivate these dead laws as we have seen very recently with Roe vs Wade
No. Federal authorities don't enforce state law. And most laws are challenged by the people, not the government. If a state passes a law that is preempted by federal law and try enforce it against me, I will sue to challenge the law.
..somebody wrote that if SCOTUS rules against it then it is literally abolished
That somebody is very wrong
Who?
Abolished in the sense that they cannot be enforced as currently written, I guess yeah. But like, state code § 30.657 or whatever will still point to the old law until/if the state does something about it.
I can't imagine a scenario where 40 states that have the political willpower to do this don't have the necessary Federal representation to make it legal nationally
I present marijuana. Nearly 40 states have it legalized or decriminalized and the feds haven’t done crap yet. By this point in prohibition they had already reversed course.
The federal government has been prohibited from prosecuting entirely in legal states for 10 years. The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment
Prohibited is an incorrect word. Disused would be more appropriate. And from what I understand this only affects med. there’s like 26 recreationally legal states and another 5 or so that are decriminalized.
It's my understanding that the amendment prohibits the justice department from spending funds to interfere with state medical marijuana laws.
Medical. There are no laws regarding rec. as I mentioned there still almost ad many rec states as med, with 0 consideration.
Nah, prosecution is prohibited see http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/14/doj-accepts-ruling-that-says-it-may-not
Yes they can, but it's not the administration in DC that they wait on before enforcing - it's the makeup of the Supreme Court they wait until favorable. That's what happened with abortion - some states passed laws waiting for the Court to get enough Conservative majority to be favorable before enforcing. And some states had old laws still on the books that were not enforced until recently.
A coalition of 40 states has the ability to call for and pass a constitutional ammendment via a constitutional convention. If they really wanted to make something legal they could easily override an executive veto or supreme court strike down.
But 40 states passing laws that are different from federal laws is not a Constitutional Convention. That's a different topic than what OP is asking about.
That might not necessarily work. A state court might strike down the law because it is not constitutional. If not the state court, then the SCOTUS. The judiciary can always check the legislative.
The courts ruling a law is unconditional does not remove the law. Only the legislature can do that. It only means that the law is no longer enforceable. And they don't rule on laws just for fun. A case has to brought to them before they can make any ruling.
..i mean..why didn't that happen with the marijuana think in CA? that was against the fed gov..passed in 1996, and then they just waited until obama, i mean they had to wait a lot time for that (republican president bush 2000-2008), and then in 2016 did the marijuana legalization
Because it's not unconstitutional. Congress for the most cannot force a state to make something illegal. Congress can still act on their own and treat something as illegal, but the state need not alter their law to correspond.
so the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970..because it..is a what, statute or something, they state can go against it? because it isn't in the bill of rights and so on
It's a federal statute, yes. It makes controlled substances a federal crime, yes. However, it does not alter state law, especially not state criminal law. The 10th Amendment gives the state policing power, meaning they have control over criminal law. As long as the criminal law does not do anything unconstitutional (e.g. cruel and unusual punishment), the federal government can't force the state to act. Contrast that with the 18th Amendment, which constitutionally outlawed liquor. There, the state had to comply because to allow liquor would be unconstitutional.
..i mean..is it basically that you have federal constitutional law..and then federal statue law..which fed constitutional law allows the fed gov to make..but..then the state can go against fed statute law, but, not fed constitutional law?
They are different jurisdictions. States enforce state laws, the federal government enforces federal laws. So a state that passes a law allowing marijuana will not arrest people for marijuana charges. But the federal government can. And in the example given by u/deep_sea2 about *Gonzales v. Raich*, that's exactly what happened. California allowed medical marijuana at the time, but it was still illegal under federal laws. It was federal criminal charges, not state criminal charges. And just because there are laws does not mean they will be enforced. The Executive branch (President and his cabinet) decide how the laws will be enforced, and for the last several years, have not been charging people with crimes for marijuana if they were obeying state laws, and did not transport it across state lines. But other laws that are different between fed and state they still enforce.
but why does the state have the right to have different laws over the fed gov if the fed gov overrules state?
Because the state enforces state laws and the feds enforce federal laws. just because a state might pass a law to make something legal that is illegal by a federal law does not mean that no one can be arrested by federal law enforcement and charged with a federal crime. Federal law enforcement can still enforce federal law even if it goes against state laws.
..somebody wrote that SCOTUS can literally force a state to abolish state laws if it deems them "unconstitutional"?
you said that SCOTUS can invalidate the state law if the state law goes against what the constitution allows the fed gov to do, wasn't the act in 1970 passed under the clause that the fed gov had the right to "regulate commerce"..so, if a state passes a law against that, doesn't that interfere/contradict the fed gov constitutional right to regulate commerce..and then SCOTUS strikes down the state law?
Yes, they can regulate commerce. That's why they can still arrest people in legal states as held in *Gonzales v. Raich*. However, the commerce clause does not force states to alter their criminal law. Although the SCOTUS said that those in a legal state could be charged under federal law, it in no way said that the local law had to be changed to correspond with federal law. The federal government can control commerce, but the state is not required to make their own law to assist the federal government in doing so. If the federal government wants to control commerce, they may have to do so alone. The state can't stop the federal government (e.g. ban the DEA from entering the state, shut down federal courthouses), but the state does not have to help either.
..i mean..is it basically that you have federal constitutional law..and then federal statue law..which fed constitutional law allows the fed gov to make..but..then the state can go against fed statute law, but, not fed constitutional law?
You are close. Federal law and state law are separate and each are enforced by the respective governments. The feds can't directly force the states to enforce federal law if they don't want to. They can apply indirect pressure though (no federal highway funds to any state that has a drinking age of less than 21) Constitutional amendments are federal, but after the 14th amendment courts have ruled that many of the amendments are applicable to the states under the incorporation doctrine. But this has been handled on a case by case over time, so not all of the rights granted by amendments have been incorporated to apply to the states but many have. If a right has not been incorporated, then it only applies to the federal government, but not the state government. If a right has been incorporated, it applies to both. As to which rights have been incorporated and which have not, and what is likely to incorporated if brought to the Supreme Court? That's a question for a constitutional lawyer. At this point I would say that most of the bill of rights has been incorporated, but it's a question that is legitimately difficult to answer as they courts usually don't make sweeping ruling like "the first amendment now applies fully to the states". They make a bunch of specific rules that say "in this specific instance, this right granted by the first amendment does apply to the state" and that's how over time these rights become incorporated.
Because President Obama directed the DOJ to not enforce or prosecute federal marijuana laws. Technically, possessing and using marijuana is still a federal crime, regardless of whether a state overturns their own laws on it. CA and other states knew that marijuana users would get a “hall pass” from the feds for breaking the law in his area.
..somebody wrote that SCOTUS can literally force a state to abolish state laws if it deems them "unconstitutional"?
People can write all sorts of stuff that is wrong. The federal government can’t force states to enforce federal law. It’s called the anti-commandeering doctrine.