The Supremacy Clause: What The Constitution Says

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, is a cornerstone of the nation's federal political structure. It establishes the priority of federal authority and law over state law, as long as the federal authority is expressed in the Constitution. The Clause has been invoked by the Supreme Court in several landmark cases, including Ware v. Hylton in 1796, United States v. Schooner Peggy in 1801, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Katzenbach v. McClung, which played a role in desegregating the American South.

Explore related products

The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today

$9.97 $12

The Supremacy Clause

$9.99 $16.99

The Supremacy Clause: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution (Reference Guides to the United States Constitution)

$95

Georgia's Constitution and Government, 10th Edition

$14.36 $15.95

White Christian Privilege

$21.99 $25

Medical Marijuana: The Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay Between State and Federal Laws

$0.99 $14.99

Judicial review

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, is a cornerstone of the nation's federal political structure. It establishes the supremacy of federal law and the underlying priority of federal authority, as expressed in the Constitution. This clause has been pivotal in shaping the country's legal landscape, particularly in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when the Supreme Court relied on it to bolster the federal government's role in managing national affairs.

The Supremacy Clause, in essence, acts as a conflict-of-laws rule, asserting that federal acts and the Constitution itself take precedence over any conflicting state laws. This principle, often taken for granted today, has been central to resolving disputes between federal and state authorities. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting and applying the Supremacy Clause, ensuring that federal statutes and treaties override inconsistent state laws.

One notable aspect of the Supremacy Clause is its reference to "judicial review," a concept that empowers courts to invalidate statutes that violate constitutional provisions. This idea underscores the role of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding the Constitution, even when faced with duly enacted statutes that may conflict with it. The Supremacy Clause, therefore, serves as a check on the powers of the legislative branch, ensuring that federal laws and treaties conform to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has utilised the Supremacy Clause in several landmark cases to shape the country's legal and political landscape. One such case is McCulloch v. Maryland, where the Court cemented the Supremacy Clause as the authoritative principle in constitutional law, unequivocally stating that the Constitution prevails in conflicts between federal and state laws. This case set a precedent that continues to shape the interpretation of federal-state dynamics.

In another significant case, Ware v. Hylton (1796), the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause for the first time, ruling that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. This decision established the binding nature of treaties on both states and private citizens, aligning with the federal government's obligations under international law. The Court's early interpretations of the Supremacy Clause set a precedent for robust federal authority and the primacy of federal law, shaping the country's legal framework in the years to come.

Federal preemption

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the US Constitution, establishes the priority of federal law over state law in the case of a conflict between the two. This clause is considered a cornerstone of the US federal political structure, emphasising the supremacy of federal authority as outlined in the Constitution. Federal preemption refers to the displacement of state law by federal law, which falls under the purview of the Supremacy Clause.

Implied preemption, on the other hand, occurs when the intent to preempt state law is implicit in the structure and purpose of a federal law. This form of preemption is more controversial and may be harder to prevent than express preemption. Field preemption is a type of implied preemption where federal law is so pervasive that it leaves no room for states to supplement it, or the federal interest is so dominant that it precludes the enforcement of state laws on the same subject. An example of field preemption is seen in early-twentieth-century decisions by the Supreme Court, where they concluded that congressional action in certain fields automatically displaced all state laws in those areas.

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting and applying the Supremacy Clause and federal preemption. The Court's cases recognise several types of preemption and attempt to follow lawmakers' intent, preferring interpretations that avoid preempting state laws unless there is a clear conflict. The Court has the power of judicial review, allowing it to invalidate a statute that violates a provision of the Constitution.

Federalism disputes

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, is a cornerstone of the nation's federal political structure. It establishes the priority of federal law and the underlying authority of the federal government, provided that authority is expressed in the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause has been a critical tool in resolving federalism disputes, which centre on the division of power between the federal and state governments.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to establish a robust role for the federal government in managing the nation's affairs. The Court invoked the clause to conclude that federal treaties and statutes superseded inconsistent state laws. One notable example is the 1796 case of Ware v. Hylton, which pitted a state law against a federal treaty. The Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War between the United States and Great Britain, was in conflict with a Virginia law that allowed residents who owed money to British creditors to discharge their debts. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal treaty, asserting that both states and private citizens were bound to comply with the treaty obligations of the federal government.

The Supreme Court has continued to play a pivotal role in interpreting and applying the Supremacy Clause in federalism disputes. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court cemented the Supremacy Clause as the controlling authority in constitutional law. This case set a significant precedent, establishing that the Constitution always takes precedence in conflicts between federal and state laws. The Court's decision affirmed that federal law supersedes conflicting state laws.

Another illustration of the Supremacy Clause's influence is the case of Katzenbach v. McClung, which propelled America toward racial equality. In this instance, the Supreme Court invoked the Supremacy Clause and the commerce clause to prevent an Alabama restaurant from refusing to serve Black customers. The Court maintained that the Constitution's commerce clause, coupled with the supremacy of federal law over state law, empowered Congress to regulate interstate commerce and prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations.

The Supremacy Clause has also been employed to address federalism disputes concerning the lawmaking process. The clause clarifies that the Constitution binds judges in every state, regardless of any contrary state laws. This interpretation reinforces the notion of judicial review, empowering courts to invalidate statutes that violate constitutional provisions.

Explore related products

"Medical" marijuana, federal drug law, and the constitution’s supremacy clause

$22.99

National Supremacy: Treaty Power Vs. State Power

$29.95

The Position of Our Church: Or the True Sense of the Non-Supremacy Clause of the New Oath 1860 [Leather Bound]

$8.95

The Constitution and Economic Regulation: Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment

$50.86 $62.99

Intention, Supremacy and the Theories of Judicial Review

$42.71 $61.99

Great Cases in Constitutional Law

$44 $47

Treaties

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, establishes the supremacy of federal laws, regulations, and treaties over state laws. It states that:

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy Clause was included in the Constitution to address the lack of a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789. During the Confederation era, federal statutes did not bind state courts in the absence of state legislation implementing them, leading to conflicts between federal and state laws.

The Supremacy Clause was first applied by the Supreme Court in the 1796 case, Ware v. Hylton, which involved a conflict between a state law and a federal treaty. The case pertained to the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War, and a Virginia law that allowed residents to discharge debts owed to British creditors. The Supreme Court invalidated the Virginia law, establishing the principle that federal treaties supersede state laws.

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that treaties are as binding as domestic federal law. However, there have been differing opinions on the enforceability of certain types of international agreements and the scope of a treaty's legal obligations. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can abrogate a treaty through legislative action, even if it violates the treaty under international law. In Missouri v. Holland (1920), the Court ruled that the Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to make treaties that supersede state law, even if they abrogate states' rights under the Tenth Amendment.

While treaties are generally considered binding, they must comply with the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a treaty is not binding domestic law unless implemented by an act of Congress or explicitly "self-executing". This interpretation has been described as "an invisible constitutional change" that departs from longstanding practice and the plain language of the Supremacy Clause.

State law

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, establishes the supremacy of federal law over state law. This means that federal laws and treaties made under the authority of the United States take precedence over any conflicting state laws. The clause was included in the Constitution to address the legal status of the laws that the Constitution empowers Congress to make, as well as the legal status of treaties and the Constitution itself.

The core principle of the Supremacy Clause is that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme Law of the Land, and judges in every state are bound by them, regardless of any contrary provisions in state constitutions or laws. This gives the Supremacy Clause a crucial role in maintaining the balance between federal and state governments.

The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting and applying the Supremacy Clause. In the early 19th century, the Court used the clause to establish a strong role for the federal government in managing the nation's affairs, ruling that federal treaties and statutes superseded inconsistent state laws. For example, in the 1796 case of Ware v. Hylton, the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause for the first time, ruling that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. The Court held that both states and private citizens were bound by federal treaty obligations.

The Supreme Court has also recognised several types of preemption, where federal law can expressly or impliedly override state law. Express preemption occurs when federal law explicitly states its intent to preempt state law, while implied preemption occurs when the intent to preempt is implicit in the structure and purpose of federal law. Field preemption, a type of implied preemption, occurs when federal law is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state supplementation or when the federal interest is so dominant that it precludes state law on the same subject.

In modern times, the Supreme Court has continued to interpret and apply the Supremacy Clause in various contexts, including in cases involving the commerce clause and civil rights. For example, in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the supremacy of federal law, ruling that the Constitution always takes precedence over conflicting state laws. In another case, Katzenbach v. McClung, the Court held that the commerce clause prevented an Alabama restaurant from refusing to serve Black customers, contributing to racial equality in the American South.

Frequently asked questions