4 ms·

Can someone explain how exactly a law can overturn a Supreme Court ruling? Doesn't it tend to go the other way?

by aqme28 7y ago

matthewmcg 7y ago
In the U.S. legal system, it depends whether the ruling is interpreting a law or a constitutional limitation. If the court is interpreting a law passed by the legislature, the legislature is free to change the law. In effect, they would be saying "no, you misunderstood us--the law should be interpreted this way and we're revising it so that's clearer." Sometimes the bill drafters are very explicit about this, including a statement in the preamble to the bill or in the legislative history that the bill is being drafted for the specific purpose of overriding X decision. (Tracking this is challenging--see this article for a good discussion https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2695&context=facpub https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...) On the other hand, if a court finds that a law is unconstitutional, that means that the legislature does not have the authority to pass the law to begin with. A constitutional limitation can't be overridden by statute. In this case, the Patent Act is a law passed by Congress and can be changed by Congress within the limits of its constitutional authority.
- vageli 7y ago
  > On the other hand, if a court finds that a law is unconstitutional, that means that the legislature does not have the authority to pass the law to begin with. A constitutional limitation can't be overridden by statute. In the United States, the legislature most certainly has the authority to modify the Constitution and has done so on several occasions.
  - jkaplowitz 7y ago
    Congress has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution. Approval from a supermajority of states is needed, without which Congress can't force the amendment through. (State constitutions vary in how they can be amended.)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - vageli 7y ago
      I was under the impression that no body has unilateral authority to create law (besides the creation of law through court precedent), so I'm not sure what value this distinction adds. That's like saying Congress doesn't make laws, they only propose them. Well, of course that's true but we tend to say that Congress makes the laws as a matter of course. I mean, we even call them "lawmakers", not "lawproposers".
      - jkaplowitz 7y ago
        A veto-overriding supermajority of both houses of Congress (or a regular majority of each house plus the President's signature or acquiescence) has absolute authority to create statute law at the federal level, within the authority granted to it by the US Constitution; and this statute law can override any other type of federal, state, or local law except the federal Constitution itself. No other authority has to approve before the change goes into effect, and the Supreme Court will go along with such changes even if they change court precedent unless the law violates the constitutional restrictions on Congress. Most proposed laws don't, including the one we're discussing here. By contrast, for a federal constitutional amendment, even if every single US Senator and every single member of the House of Representatives votes yes (note that the President is not involved in this process), if the states take no action, no amendment happens. Very different.
- cyphar 7y ago
  > On the other hand, if a court finds that a law is unconstitutional, that means that the legislature does not have the authority to pass the law to begin with. Not necessarily. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, that might only mean that some provisions exceed Congress's authority. They can always modify the law, and amend it in order get around the unconstitutional aspects. Not all constitutionality decisions are as black-and-white as that.
vageli 7y ago
The Supreme Court interprets the law as it is written. If the legislature decides they want to change the law, they can (like how if something is declared "unconstitutional", by following procedures the legislature could modify the Constitution to make it so).
ajross 7y ago
It depends on how the finding was made. If the court says that something is illegal via a direct conflict with the constitution, then no law short of a constitutional amendment is going to be able to overrule the decision. In these cases, though, (and I'm not a lawyer!) the existing decisions are on weaker grouns. The court held that nothing in the constitution or the legal charter of the USPTO gave it the power to allow protection for things like gene, software or business method patents. So trying to regulate them was beyond the powers granted to the government by itself. So you fix that by writing a law spelling out more clearly what the USPTO is allowed to do. The actual language in the constitution itself is very broad: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". It's extremely hard to read a ban on gene patents in that, IMHO.
cyphar 7y ago
Legislation always trumps the judiciary. The point of the judiciary is to interpret and apply laws, which forms "common law" or precedence for other legal cases. This is the case for almost all multi-branch governmental systems (especially those descended from English legal tradition). The reasoning is that the legislature is elected while the judiciary isn't -- so giving the judiciary the power to overrule the legislature without any recourse would be undemocratic. You are probably thinking of cases where the Supreme Court has found laws to be unconstitutional. In that case, the legislature has two options: change the law so it's constitutional (might not be possible if the fundamental aspects of the law was to found to be unconstitutional), or change the constitution to accommodate the law (hard because it requires a supermajority of state legislatures to pass it). Both options are available to the legislature and once either is done then the Supreme Court ruling is either no longer applicable (if the law was changed) or possibly completely invalidated (if the constitution was amended).

Can someone explain how exactly a law can overturn a Supreme Court ruling? Doesn't it tend to go the other way?

by aqme28 7y ago

Can someone explain how exactly a law can overturn a Supreme Court ruling? Doesn't it tend to go the other way?

In the U.S. legal system, it depends whether the ruling is interpreting a law or a constitutional limitation. If the court is interpreting a law passed by the legislature, the legislature is free to change the law. In effect, they would be saying "no, you misunderstood us--the law should be interpreted this way and we're revising it so that's clearer." Sometimes the bill drafters are very explicit about this, including a statement in the preamble to the bill or in the legislative history that the bill is being drafted for the specific purpose of overriding X decision. (Tracking this is challenging--see this article for a good discussion https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2695&context=facpub https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...) On the other hand, if a court finds that a law is unconstitutional, that means that the legislature does not have the authority to pass the law to begin with. A constitutional limitation can't be overridden by statute. In this case, the Patent Act is a law passed by Congress and can be changed by Congress within the limits of its constitutional authority.

vageli 7y ago
> On the other hand, if a court finds that a law is unconstitutional, that means that the legislature does not have the authority to pass the law to begin with. A constitutional limitation can't be overridden by statute. In the United States, the legislature most certainly has the authority to modify the Constitution and has done so on several occasions.
- jkaplowitz 7y ago
  Congress has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution. Approval from a supermajority of states is needed, without which Congress can't force the amendment through. (State constitutions vary in how they can be amended.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - vageli 7y ago
    I was under the impression that no body has unilateral authority to create law (besides the creation of law through court precedent), so I'm not sure what value this distinction adds. That's like saying Congress doesn't make laws, they only propose them. Well, of course that's true but we tend to say that Congress makes the laws as a matter of course. I mean, we even call them "lawmakers", not "lawproposers".
    - jkaplowitz 7y ago
      A veto-overriding supermajority of both houses of Congress (or a regular majority of each house plus the President's signature or acquiescence) has absolute authority to create statute law at the federal level, within the authority granted to it by the US Constitution; and this statute law can override any other type of federal, state, or local law except the federal Constitution itself. No other authority has to approve before the change goes into effect, and the Supreme Court will go along with such changes even if they change court precedent unless the law violates the constitutional restrictions on Congress. Most proposed laws don't, including the one we're discussing here. By contrast, for a federal constitutional amendment, even if every single US Senator and every single member of the House of Representatives votes yes (note that the President is not involved in this process), if the states take no action, no amendment happens. Very different.
cyphar 7y ago
> On the other hand, if a court finds that a law is unconstitutional, that means that the legislature does not have the authority to pass the law to begin with. Not necessarily. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, that might only mean that some provisions exceed Congress's authority. They can always modify the law, and amend it in order get around the unconstitutional aspects. Not all constitutionality decisions are as black-and-white as that.

vageli 7y ago

The Supreme Court interprets the law as it is written. If the legislature decides they want to change the law, they can (like how if something is declared "unconstitutional", by following procedures the legislature could modify the Constitution to make it so).

ajross 7y ago

It depends on how the finding was made. If the court says that something is illegal via a direct conflict with the constitution, then no law short of a constitutional amendment is going to be able to overrule the decision. In these cases, though, (and I'm not a lawyer!) the existing decisions are on weaker grouns. The court held that nothing in the constitution or the legal charter of the USPTO gave it the power to allow protection for things like gene, software or business method patents. So trying to regulate them was beyond the powers granted to the government by itself. So you fix that by writing a law spelling out more clearly what the USPTO is allowed to do. The actual language in the constitution itself is very broad: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". It's extremely hard to read a ban on gene patents in that, IMHO.

cyphar 7y ago

Legislation always trumps the judiciary. The point of the judiciary is to interpret and apply laws, which forms "common law" or precedence for other legal cases. This is the case for almost all multi-branch governmental systems (especially those descended from English legal tradition). The reasoning is that the legislature is elected while the judiciary isn't -- so giving the judiciary the power to overrule the legislature without any recourse would be undemocratic. You are probably thinking of cases where the Supreme Court has found laws to be unconstitutional. In that case, the legislature has two options: change the law so it's constitutional (might not be possible if the fundamental aspects of the law was to found to be unconstitutional), or change the constitution to accommodate the law (hard because it requires a supermajority of state legislatures to pass it). Both options are available to the legislature and once either is done then the Supreme Court ruling is either no longer applicable (if the law was changed) or possibly completely invalidated (if the constitution was amended).