Can Congress write laws that overrule SCOTUS decisions?

[MoonRiver]

I heard a lawyer say this once on some program. Is it true? If so, this would be the method by which we could deal with a hard right Supreme Court, assuming, of course, we eventually get a solid majority in both houses, and, have a Democratic president.

[shoelace414]

1. depends on the ruling

[MoonRiver]

2. Can you provide an example?

I have wondered about this possibility since I heard of it.

[SteppingRazor]

4. I think what shoelace means is...

Congress can write a law trying to go around a Supreme Court ruling.

For example, the SCOTUS says anti-abortion laws are illegal.

So, Congress passes a partial-birth abortion law.

That sort of thing.


As for directly striking down a SCOTUS ruling through legislation, no, that's impossible. The only thing that overcomes a SCOTUS reading of the Constitution is to change the Constitution itself (i.e. amendment)

[MoonRiver]

8. So this country would have to turn solidly blue not just in US Congress,

but state Congresses as well. That is if we want to fascist proof the Constitution.

[wryter2000]

10. Same thing with the death penalty

SCOTUS found the death penalty unconstitutional. States rewrote their death penlaty laws to conform to the ruling. Unfortunately, we still have the problem that people of color are executed disproportionally. :(

[Inland]

6. Not really overturning

The SCt interprets the law as written at that moment, so new or amended laws can get different results.

So an interpretation of statute can always be "overturned" by a new statute more clearly and definitively stating a different interpretation.

Same with constitution, although the congress itself, of course, cannot amend the constitution.

[Lex]

3. If Congress writes laws that the Supreme Ct. rules are "unconstitutional"

then no, those laws won't stand.

[karlrschneider]

7. I think that's right but wouldn't there have to be a challenge before they

could rule?

[Lex]

9. Yes, an acutal case would have to work its way up to the Supreme Court

in most all instances in order to over-rule a law that has been passed.

[Bill McBlueState]

11. this is what's happening with the Patriot Act

There's consensus from a lot of quarters that much of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, but it will continue to be enforced until the Supreme Court rules on it.

[ElaineinIN]

5. Depends upon the basis for the ruling

The Supreme Court has the final say on what is and is not constitutional, so Congress can't overrule that determination. Thus, why they need a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion as long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

Congress could try to re-write a statute to address the constitutional concerns raisedin a SCOTUS decision (for example, if something is unconstitutionally vague, trying to make is less vague).

However, if the SCOTUS was addressing an issue that wasn't necessarily constitutional (for example, statutory construction), then Congress could overrule a SCOTUS decision, at least prospectively. This happens a lot of the time in tax cases that make it to SCOTUS, which rarely raise constitutional issues.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Some history

Read the sequence of

* Oregon v. Smith, 485 US 660, "The Peyote Case"
* Religious Freedom Restoration Act (to over rule Smith)
* Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520

My own take - Congress can "probably" over rule a Supreme Court decision - BUT - I do not think that Congress can over rule a Supreme Court decision broadening a Constitutional right.

[Tamyrlin79]

13. Depends on what SCOTUS interprets

If SCOTUS interprets a statute to mean a certain thing, and congress disagrees, then that interpretation can be overturned by congress amending/repealing the statute in question.

If SCOTUS interprets the constitution, then that interpretation can only be overturned by 1) SCOTUS reversing itself or 2) a constitutional amendment.

[confludemocrat]

14. Couldn't the decisions that the Warren Court ruled on like Miranda and the

Sullivan case and so many others have been left as state court rulings had not these cases been pushed all the way to the Supreme Court by officials thinking they would surely get a good reading from the Supremes this time around and then found out that by pushing to reverse a lower court ruling they, without intending it, ended up having the Sup. Court turn the decision into the "law of the land"?

In other words, didn't Miranda go against the state and for Miranda and then the Supreme Court confirm it? So leaving local "bad" rulings in place without going to this surely rightward court might prevent a "law of the land" ruling by such a court (good in the case of Miranda, but potentially bad in many future rulings)?