What if an American state ratified an article to its constitution that blocked judicial review?
<p>Basically, if an American state added an article to its constitution, via the relevant mechanism that allows it to do so, that proscribed state and federal courts from striking down its legislation, how would they be able to handle cases involving judicial review with a law they deemed unconstitutional (e.g. one prohibiting same-sex marriage)?</p>
<p>Would the Supreme Court be able to invalidate part of a state's constitution? Would the law simply be allowed to stand despite a federal or state court's finding that it is at odds with the US or state constitution?</p>
<p>Has this issue ever come close to being addressed before, or is it something that could never happen?</p>
<p>Many thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Under Article VI of the US Constitution, the federal constitution and valid federal laws are the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state are bound to apply them regardless of anything in the laws or constitution of any state.* If a state legislature passes a law banning same-sex marriage, a state court is required under the federal constitution to instead apply the federal constitution (as interpreted by the US Supreme Court in <em>Obergefell v. Hodges</em>) and rule as though same-sex marriage is legal.</p>
<p>When it comes to a federal court, things are even easier: a state cannot command a federal court to do anything. A federal court’s authority is laid out in Article III of the federal constitution and in federal statute, which (per Article VI) is supreme over anything in the laws or constitution of any state.</p>
<p>There have been times where states attempted to challenge federal supremacy. Normally, this is handled by going to federal court. Decisions in state courts can ultimately be appealed to the US Supreme Court, which can reverse them if they incorrectly applied federal law. Most of the time, that’s the end of matters: when a federal court rules, state officials comply.</p>
<p>Occasionally, that’s not enough. If a state disobeys the orders of a federal court, they can be enforced by federal agents. If even that isn’t enough, the President can deploy the armed forces to uphold federal authority.</p>
<hr />
<p>* There are situations which are more complicated, like when something is a federal crime but not a state crime. I can do more research on that if you want, but for now I’m going to leave it at “it’s more complicated.”</p>

<p>A US state could prevent its own courts from overturning laws for violations of the state constitution.  But the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause" rel="noreferrer">supremacy clause</a> in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This mean s that state as well as federal judges are legally bound to find invalid and unenforceable any state laws which violate the Federal constitution or federal laws, as interpreted by the Supreme court. See <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI_C2_1_1_3/" rel="noreferrer">this page</a> on the standards for preemption</p>
<p>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Hunter%27s_Lessee" rel="noreferrer"><em>Martin v. Hunter's Lessee</em>, 14 U.S. 304 (1816)</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohens_v._Virginia" rel="noreferrer"><em>Cohens v. Virginia</em>, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)</a>, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Supremacy Clause and the judicial power granted in Article III grant the Supreme Court the final power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableman_v._Booth" rel="noreferrer"><em>Ableman v. Booth</em>, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)</a>, the Supreme Court ruled that state courts may not issue rulings inconsistent with  the holdings of federal courts, referring to the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron" rel="noreferrer"><em>Cooper v. Aaron</em>, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)</a>, the Supreme Court rejected attempts by Arkansas to nullify the Court's school desegregation decision, <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em>. The state of Arkansas, basing its action on a theory of states' rights, had passed several laws intended to nullify <em>Brown</em>. The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to rule that the federal law took precedence and could not be blocked by state laws or administrators.</p>

constitutional-law us-constitution federal-courts