Nullification and the Supreme Court
Nullification refers to the idea that states have the right to invalidate federal laws they believe exceed the powers granted to the national government by the Constitution. This concept was first introduced by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, positing that the Constitution is a compact among sovereign states, each capable of interpreting the limits of federal authority. Conversely, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the view that the Constitution represents a compact among the people, establishing a federal government with broad powers that cannot be constrained by state laws. Key Supreme Court cases, such as Chisholm v. Georgia, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Ableman v. Booth, illustrate the Court's stance that it holds the authority to interpret federal law and assess the constitutionality of state actions. The Court's position reinforces the idea that states cannot nullify federal legislation, which was further established in later cases like Cooper v. Aaron. The debate over nullification and federal authority remains a significant aspect of American constitutional discourse, reflecting ongoing tensions between state and national governance.
On this Page
Nullification and the Supreme Court
Definition: The theory that the states are the final arbiters of the limits of national authority and that each may veto the enforcement of federal laws it determines to be unconstitutional, at least within its own boundaries.
Significance: Primarily associated with the antebellum South, nullification was invoked to resist national policies that were locally unpopular. Such claims have been consistently rejected by the Supreme Court.
First articulated by Thomas Jefferson in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, nullification rests on the theory that the Constitution of the United States is a compact among the sovereign states. The authorities of the national government are carefully limited, encompassing only those powers surrendered by the states. Because the national government is a creation of this compact, it cannot judge the limits of its own authorities under it. States, having no superior authority among them, must each judge for themselves whether the national government has exceeded those limited grants of authority.
The Supreme Court, in cases such as Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), and Cohens v. Virginia (1821), adopted the opposing view, that the Constitution is a compact among the people, acting as a national community. The Constitution establishes a federal government of limited authorities that are to be given broad interpretations and the operation of which cannot be limited by the states. In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the Court rebuffed Wisconsin’s attempt to frustrate enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and affirmed the authority of the Court to determine the constitutionality of federal legislation. This authority was reaffirmed in Cooper v. Aaron (1958).
Bibliography
Beatty, Lauren Moxley. “The Resurrection of State Nullification—and the Degradation of Constitutional Rights: SB8 and the Blueprint for State Copycat Laws.” The Georgetown Law Journal, vol 111, 2022. www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/glj-online/glj-online-vol-111/the-resurrection-of-state-nullification-and-the-degradation-of-constitutional-rights-sb8-and-the-blueprint-for-state-copycat-laws/. Accessed 6 Apr. 2023.
Desai, Samarth. "Looking Back: Nullification in American History." National Constitution Center, 4 Feb. 2022, constitutioncenter.org/blog/looking-back-nullification-in-american-history. Accessed 6 Apr. 2023.