> What is the actual effect of SCOTUS setting aside as unconstitutional duly passed acts of Congress? That's like asking, what is the actual effect of a thunde

> What is the actual effect of SCOTUS setting aside as unconstitutional duly passed acts of Congress? That's like asking, what is the actual effect of a thunderstorm. The answer is, it depends. At a minimum, if a government official were to attempt to enforce a law after it had been declared unconstitutional, almost certainly someone would challenge the enforcement attempt in a lower court. (If no one cared, the law wouldn't have ended up in the Supreme Court in the first place.) The challenge usually will lead to the lower court's issuance of an injunction prohibiting the government official from continuing with his or her attempt to enforce the law. Disobedience of the injunction is punishable as contempt -- as in, the U.S. Marshals will arrest and jail the disobedient official until the contempt is purged. (I don't have time to go into the details of the contempt process.) I can't remember that ever happening, because the Court's power to declare a statute unconstitutional is essentially universally accepted as a practical matter, even though some theorists challenge it from time to time. Sometimes the Court rules that the unenforceability is retroactive; this can create practical problems, but institutionally the Court is fully aware of that and takes it into account. Other times the Court will say that the unenforceability is prospective only, that is, existing actions aren't to be disturbed. Incidentally, the article by Pickerill (not Pickerell) that you cite doesn't support your view. The article lists the various ways in which Congress has deferred to the Court's rulings, that is, acceded to the Court's authority. For example, Congress might amend an unconstitutional statute to fix the constitutionality problems, or it might repeal the statute entirely.