New
Republic - It’s been a big year
for the supremacy clause. The important but rarely newsworthy constitutional
provision has found itself at the center of multiple major legal battles. In
recent months, the Trump administration has leaned heavily on the clause to make
extraordinary—and often dubious—claims about its own powers.
The clause declares that the Constitution, as well as the
federal laws “made in pursuance thereof” and treaties signed under it, “shall
be the supreme Law of the Land.” It further states that “judges in every state
shall be bound thereby.” In other words, the supremacy clause does what its
name suggests: It establishes that the Constitution is supreme over state
legislatures and state courts, as is Congress when acting within its own
spheres of authority.
The Trump administration has taken a much more aggressive
view of the clause, wielding it as a tool to bludgeon Democratic-led state
governments into compliance with its own policy agenda or, more accurately,
self-serving desires. Naturally, this is not how the Constitution is meant to
operate. There are also signs that the administration’s overreach could
backfire.
The clause comes up most often in cases involving federal
preemption. In short, when Congress enacts a constitutionally valid law, it
narrows the states’ ability to regulate the same thing. A good example is
environmental protection. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act limit states’
abilities to regulate some environmental issues while explicitly carving out
other cases on which states can act. The Supreme Court has already heard a
preemption case about climate litigation this term.
No comments:
Post a Comment