Supreme Law of the Land (United States)
| Constitutional Law of the United States |
|---|
 |
| Overview |
| Principles |
| Government structure |
| Individual rights |
| Theory |
The Supreme Law of the Land Doctrine established by the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Section 1) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting State laws. It provides that State courts are bound by, and State constitutions subordinate to, the supreme Law.[1] that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Declaration of Rights—of particular interest is Article III of the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, enumerates the Powers reserved to the States, and, finally, declares that “all Powers unknown to the Constitution, and not prohibited to the States,” are reserved to the respective States.
The Supremacy Article is essentially a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any State acts that conflict with federal law. Some jurists further argue that the clause also nullifies federal law that is in conflict with the Constitution, although this is disputed. The Supremacy Article follows Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor of the Constitution, which provided that, “[E]very State shall abide by the determination of the [Congress], on all questions which by this Confederation are submitted to them.”
As a constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Article assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, albeit only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself; no matter what the federal or State governments might wish to do, they must stay within the boundaries of the Constitution.[2] Consequently, the Supremacy Article is considered a cornerstone of the United States’ federal political structure.
Text[edit | edit source]
| “ | Article VI. Validity and supremacy
Section 1. Constitution; supreme law
|
” |
| —U.S. Const., art. VI, §1 | ||
Preemption doctrine[edit | edit source]
The constitutional principle derived from the Supremacy Article is federal preemption. Preemption applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions.
Congress has preempted State regulation in various areas. Where rules or regulations do not clearly state whether or not preemption should apply, the Supreme Court tries to follow lawmakers’ intent and prefers interpretations that avoid preempting State laws.
Subsequent federal case law[edit | edit source]
Treaties[edit | edit source]
Supreme Court interpretations[edit | edit source]
See also[edit | edit source]
- Federal preemption
- Intergovernmental immunity
- Interposition
- Necessary and Proper Clause
- Reserved Powers (United States Constitution)
- Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia – analogous section of the Constitution of Australia
- Paramountcy (Canada) – analogous doctrine in Canadian constitutional law
- Primacy of European Union law – analogous doctrine in European Union law
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Under the Supremacy Clause, the “supreme Law of the Land” also includes federal statutes enacted by Congress. Within the limits of the powers that Congress gets from other parts of the Constitution, Congress can establish rules of decision that American courts are bound to apply, even if state law purports to supply contrary rules. Congress also has at least some authority to put certain topics wholly off limits to state law, or otherwise to restrict what state law can validly say about those topics. As long as the directives that Congress enacts are indeed authorized by the Constitution, they take priority over both the ordinary laws and the constitution of each individual state.
- ↑ During the ratification, various Federalists urged that "in pursuance" of the Constitution meant not just conformity with bicameralism and presentment, but otherwise consistent with the entire Constitution. Only such latter statutes were entitled to be treated as supreme over contrary state law. See, for example, Jensen, ed, 2 Documentary History of the Ratification at 517 (cited in note 59) (James Wilson commenting that “in pursuance” meant that a law was otherwise constitutional). Earlier, Wilson had claimed that Congress could not pass any laws restricting the press because such laws would not be in “pursuance” of the Constitution. Id at 455. See also Jonathan Elliot, ed, 4 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 188 (2d ed 1836) (Governor Johnston of North Carolina commenting that every law consistent with the Constitution is “made in Pursuance” of it; those laws inconsistent are not made in Pursuance of it); id at 182 (William Davie commenting to the same effect); id at 28, 178–79 (James Iredell commenting to the same effect); Federalist 33 (Hamilton), in The Federalist 203, 207 (Wesleyan 1961) (Jacob E. Cooke, ed) (claiming that laws that are not pursuant to the Constitution, but instead invade state power, are acts of usurpation).