In his essay, Do State Legislatures Have to Obey U.S. Supreme Court Decisions? Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses how several state legislatures, particularly Alabama, are passing laws allowing the death penalty for child rape despite a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Kennedy v. Louisiana, that declared such punishment unconstitutional. Professor Sarat argues that this strategic legislative defiance represents a dangerous trend that threatens constitutional order, as lawmakers are deliberately passing unconstitutional laws hoping the current conservative-majority Supreme Court will overturn precedent, similar to the strategy that led to Roe v. Wade being overturned.
Reflecting on the urgency expressed by professor Sarat regarding this question, we have prepared our own report, titled Do State Legislatures Have to Obey U.S. Supreme Court Decisions?, An Overview, to provide an added frame of reference for considering the implications of professor Sarat’s posting. Our Report, which follows, is based on our search of related sources, including Deep Research, the advanced AI research application recently introduced by Open AI.
DO STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE TO OBEY U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS?, An Oveerview
Under the U.S. Constitution and our system of judicial review, state legislatures (like all state officials) are bound to obey U.S. Supreme Court decisions on matters of federal law and constitutional interpretation. This principle is grounded in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and has been affirmed by foundational Supreme Court precedents. In practice, if a state legislature enacts a law that conflicts with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that law will be invalidated. Below is an overview of the constitutional framework and key legal precedents establishing the Supreme Court’s authority over state legislatures, along with historical instances that illustrate this authority in action.
Constitutional Foundations of Supreme Court Authority
Supremacy Clause (Article VI): The U.S. Constitution explicitly makes federal law supreme over state law. Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause) provides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” law.cornell.edu.
In other words, when the Supreme Court (the highest court of the United States) interprets the Constitution or a federal law, that interpretation becomes part of the supreme law of the land, overriding any conflicting state legislative acts. Article VI further requires that “the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers [of the states], shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” law.cornell.edu.
This oath underscores that state lawmakers must uphold the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law, as interpreted by the federal judiciary.
Judicial Review and “Say What the Law Is”: The Constitution establishes a federal judiciary (Article III) with the Supreme Court at its apex. Although Article VI binds state judges to federal law, it was Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), that famously asserted the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution. In Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall declared “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” supreme.justia.com
This case established judicial review, meaning the Supreme Court can invalidate laws (federal or state) that violate the U.S. Constitution supreme.justia.com. Combined with the Supremacy Clause, Marbury’s principle implies that when the Supreme Court says a state law is unconstitutional, state authorities (including legislatures) must consider that law void.
Key Supreme Court Precedents Binding the States
Early Supreme Court decisions cemented the hierarchy of federal vs. state authority. For example, in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816), the Court held that it has appellate power over state court decisions on federal issues, ensuring uniformity of federal law across states connections.ca6.uscourts.gov
Justice Joseph Story, relying on Article III and the Supremacy Clause, reasoned that federal interpretations of federal law must supersede state interpretations supreme.justia.com
This means a state court (and by extension, a state legislature) cannot have the final say on a constitutional question in conflict with the Supreme Court’s view.
Subsequent cases directly confronted state attempts to defy federal authority. In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Wisconsin courts’ (and legislature’s) attempt to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s opinion “denied the right of state courts to interfere in federal cases” and prohibited states from contradicting federal court rulings britannica.com.
. In short, state courts could not release a federal prisoner or ignore federal law just because a state believed the law unconstitutional. The ruling underscored that states have no authority to opt out of Supreme Court decisions or federal law enforcement.
Perhaps the strongest statement of this principle came in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). In Cooper, state officials in Arkansas argued they were not bound by the Supreme Court’s landmark desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The Supreme Court responded with an emphatic rejection of that position. The justices unanimously reaffirmed that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land as interpreted by the Court, invoking Marbury v. Madison’s axiom that the judicial department says what the law is supreme.findlaw.com
The Court declared that Brown’s constitutional holding “can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes.” All nine Justices individually signed the opinion to underscore its importance. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Court stated that **no state official, **“no state legislator or executive or judicial officer, can war against the Constitution without violating his oath to support it.” supreme.findlaw.com
Thus, Cooper v. Aaron stands for the principle that state governments are unequivocally bound by Supreme Court decisions connections.ca6.uscourts.gov
A state legislature cannot pass a law counter to a Supreme Court ruling on constitutional rights; any such law would be struck down as void.
Historical Instances of State Resistance
Throughout U.S. history, there have been moments when state legislatures or officials resisted Supreme Court mandates—though these attempts ultimately failed or were reversed. An infamous early example is Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832). The Supreme Court in Worcester struck down Georgia’s extension of state laws into Cherokee tribal territory, affirming that Georgia had no authority there. However, Georgia’s government ignored the decision and continued to hold the missionary Samuel Worcester in prison, and President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the ruling britannica.com
This open defiance did not legally negate the decision (Worcester’s conviction was still void); rather, it was a breakdown of enforcement. Although Worcester illustrates the potential for conflict, it remains a historical anomaly. The episode actually reinforced, in the long run, the understanding that the rule of law requires compliance with Supreme Court decisions—even if enforcement at the time was lacking.
Another instance was the “Nullification” crisis and related efforts before the Civil War. In the 1850s, Wisconsin’s legislature declared the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional and attempted to block its enforcement. This prompted the Supreme Court’s Ableman v. Booth decision, which unequivocally rejected the idea that a state could nullify federal law or court orders britannica.com
.The outcome of the Civil War and subsequent Reconstruction Amendments further cemented federal supremacy over states. By the mid-20th century, when Southern states pursued “Massive Resistance” to avoid desegregation, the judiciary intervened repeatedly. State laws attempting to thwart Brown v. Board were struck down by lower federal courts, and Cooper v. Aaron put an exclamation point on the principle that states must yield to Supreme Court rulings on the Constitution supreme.findlaw.com
After Cooper, even reluctant states gradually complied with desegregation orders, recognizing that continued defiance was not legally tenable supreme.findlaw.com
These historical episodes underscore that while political resistance has occurred, the legal theory and practice in the United States leave no doubt that state legislatures are not free to disregard Supreme Court decisions. Every time a state has tried to defy the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, the attempt has been met with federal judicial invalidation or even intervention by federal authorities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, state legislatures must obey U.S. Supreme Court decisions by virtue of the Constitution’s design. The Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2) makes the Constitution and federal law supreme over state law, and Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution are binding on the states. From Marbury v. Madison through Cooper v. Aaron, the Supreme Court has affirmed its role as ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions, and it has explicitly held that states (including their legislatures) cannot choose to ignore or “nullify” the Court’s rulings connections.ca6.uscourts.gov
References (Bluebook style):
- U.S. Const. art. VI, cls. 2–3.
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177–78 (1803).
- Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 342–44 (1816).
- Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506, 515–17 (1859).
- Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 17–19 (1958).
- Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 593 (1832).
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).