Isabella Carter
The Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution, nor does it have the power to overturn an amendment. Its purpose is to interpret the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court can override laws if they contradict another existing law or the Constitution. While there is no mechanism to sue to stop an amendment other than it not receiving enough votes, individuals may bring constitutional cases against states under certain circumstances. The United States may also bring suits against a state in the Supreme Court or district courts, as seen in the 1960 case United States v. Raines.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Suing an amendment to the constitution | No mechanism to sue and prevent an amendment from being passed. However, a passed amendment can be challenged in court. |
| Suing a state | The Eleventh Amendment forbids individuals from different states and countries from suing a state. However, under certain circumstances, individuals may bring constitutional and statutory cases against states. |
| United States suing in its own courts | The United States may bring suits against a state in the Supreme Court or district courts. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Suing before an amendment is passed
The Supreme Court cannot review constitutional amendments before they are passed. There is no mechanism to sue to stop an amendment other than it not receiving enough votes. No one has standing to sue until an amendment is passed.
However, there is a possibility that a joint resolution proposing an amendment could be challenged in the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional before the amendment is passed. For example, if only one of the two houses approved an amendment by a two-thirds majority and tried to send it to the states, this technical issue could be grounds for a challenge.
There is an issue of timing with this approach, as it may take longer for a ruling on the case than it would for states to ratify the amendment, rendering the case moot.
Additionally, the Supreme Court cannot "overturn" an amendment once it is passed. Their purpose is to interpret the Constitution, and they can only act on cases brought before them. The only way for an amendment to be changed or repealed is through the amendment process outlined in the Constitution.
Influential Documents: First Amendment's Origins
You may want to see also
Supreme Court's power to overturn amendments
The Supreme Court does not have the power to overturn amendments to the Constitution. Its purpose is to interpret the Constitution and determine what is constitutional and what is not. The Supreme Court can only override laws if they contradict an already existing law or the Constitution itself.
The process of overturning an amendment begins with Congress. If two-thirds of both houses of Congress agree to propose an amendment, and three-quarters of the states ratify it, then the amendment can be overturned. This is a challenging task that hasn't been accomplished in over 30 years.
An example of an amendment being overturned is the 21st amendment, which nullified the 18th amendment by ending the prohibition of alcohol.
It is worth noting that Congress can sometimes achieve similar goals without amending the Constitution. They can do this by enacting statutes that extend constitutional principles through their enumerated powers, such as the ability to regulate commerce and enforce the Reconstruction Amendments.
Additionally, there is a debate about whether an amendment that contradicts the existing Constitution's fundamental principles, such as the doctrine of separation of powers, would require a new Constitution rather than just an amendment.
The Second Amendment: Can it be Repealed?
You may want to see also
Suing individual states
The Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution addresses lawsuits against states by citizens of another state or foreign state. It states that the judicial power of the United States does not extend to any suit in law or equity brought by citizens of another state or foreign state against one of the United States.
Despite the Eleventh Amendment's limitations, individuals may, under certain circumstances, bring constitutional and statutory cases against states. This can occur when the state's sovereign immunity has been waived by the state or abrogated by Congress. Additionally, the Eleventh Amendment may not apply if the procedural posture is such that the Court does not view the case as being against a state. This exception is often seen in suits to enjoin state officials, bankruptcy cases, and admiralty cases where the property in dispute is the legal target.
The Eleventh Amendment has been challenged in Supreme Court decisions throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, with a shift towards expanding states' rights. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976), the Court determined that Congress had the authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to allow states to be sued to address discriminatory practices. However, in 1996's Seminole Tribe v. Florida, it was concluded that Congress did not have the authority to subject states to lawsuits relating to the Commerce Clause of Article I.
While the Eleventh Amendment provides immunity to states from lawsuits by citizens of another state or foreign state, it is important to note that individuals can still challenge the implementation of state policies and the constitutionality of state statutes through suits against state officials. These suits can seek to prevent state officials from executing state laws that conflict with the Constitution or federal law. Additionally, suits against state officers acting pursuant to an unconstitutional statute are common to test the validity of state legislation in federal courts.
The First Amendment: Freedom's Foundation
You may want to see also
Explore related products
State immunity from federal regulation
The concept of state immunity from federal regulation in the United States is known as "state sovereign immunity". This doctrine holds that a state generally cannot be sued in federal or state court without its consent. This immunity is derived not from any specific constitutional amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
There are, however, certain exceptions to state sovereign immunity. Firstly, individuals may bring constitutional and statutory cases against states under certain circumstances. For example, in the case of Ex Parte Young, the Supreme Court held that a private litigant could sue a state official for prospective injunctive relief to end a continuing violation of federal law. Additionally, Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity and compel a state to court if it unequivocally expresses its intent to do so through a clear legislative statement.
Another exception to state sovereign immunity is when the entity being sued is not considered an "arm of the state", meaning the state is not technically being sued. Furthermore, state immunity from federal regulation under the Tenth Amendment has been found to extend to political subdivisions, as seen in the case of Printz v. United States.
In terms of specific areas of regulation, the Supreme Court has ruled on instances where state immunity does not apply. For instance, in United States v. Raines, the Court upheld a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 that allowed the Attorney General to sue for injunctive relief against interference with voting rights. Additionally, in Davis v. Michigan, the Court ruled that state governments may not tax federal pensions if they exempt their own state pensions from taxation.
While state sovereign immunity limits the ability to sue states in federal and state courts, it is important to note that it does not completely prevent all legal actions against states. There are mechanisms in place, such as congressional abrogation and explicit or implicit waiver by the state, that allow for legal recourse in certain situations.
The Constitution: Ever-Changing, Ever-Lasting
You may want to see also
The right of the United States to sue
The United States may bring suits against a state in the Supreme Court pursuant to the Court’s original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b)(2), or the United States may bring such suits in the district courts. In 1833, Justice Joseph Story noted that while an express power is not given in the Constitution, the right of the United States to sue in its own courts is clearly implied in that part respecting the judicial power. Through the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent amendments to the Act, Congress has granted federal district courts jurisdiction to hear civil suits brought by the United States as a party plaintiff in law or equity.
In the 1960 case United States v. Raines, the Court upheld a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 that authorized the Attorney General to sue for injunctive relief against interference with voting rights. In response to the challengers’ argument that it was beyond the power of Congress to authorize the United States to bring [an] action in support of private constitutional rights, the Court held that there is the highest public interest in the due observance of all the constitutional guarantees, including those that bear the most directly on private rights, and we think it perfectly competent for Congress to authorize the United States to be the guardian of that public interest in a suit for injunctive relief.
In contrast to their treatment under the Eleventh Amendment, the Court has found that state immunity from federal regulation under the Tenth Amendment extends to political subdivisions as well. See Printz v. United States, Lake Cnty. Ests., Chicot Cnty. v. Sherwood, and Petty v. Tenn.-Mo. Bridge Comm’n. Even when such entities enjoy immunity from suit under state law, they do not have Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court, and states may not confer it. Similarly, entities created pursuant to interstate compacts (and subject to congressional approval) are not immune from suit, absent a showing that the entity was structured so as to take advantage of the state’s constitutional protections.
Despite the apparent limitations of the Eleventh Amendment, individuals may, under certain circumstances, bring constitutional and statutory cases against states. In some of these cases, the state’s sovereign immunity has either been waived by the state (either explicitly or implicitly as a product of their consent to the plan of the Constitutional Convention) or abrogated by Congress. In other cases, the Eleventh Amendment does not apply because the procedural posture is such that the Court does not view them as being against a state.
How Citizens Can Propose Constitutional Amendments
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, there is no mechanism to sue to stop an amendment other than it not getting enough votes. No one has standing to sue until it's been passed.
The Supreme Court cannot “overturn” an amendment. Their purpose is to interpret the Constitution. However, they can override laws if they contradict another existing law or the Constitution.
Yes, the United States may bring suits against a state in the Supreme Court pursuant to the Court’s original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b)(2), or in the district courts.
