# Does the Texas Sovereignty Act claim to render the U.S. Supreme Court moot? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 24, 2024, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118 "2024-12-24T15:27:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/1 "2024-12-24T15:27:47Z")
Reported on here: [Texas Sovereignty Act would allow Texas to declare federal actions unconstitutional](https://www.ktre.com/2024/12/24/texas-sovereignty-act-would-allow-texas-declare-federal-actions-unconstitutional/) Under Texas Senate Bill 80, the Texas Sovereignty Act, “The bill would create a bi-partisan joint committee to review federal actions. The bill lists federal law, agency policies, executive orders, court decisions, and treaties, as potential subjects. If the committee reviews an action and declares it unconstitutional, the Texas Supreme Court, the full legislature, and the governor must agree. If an action is deemed so, no Texas funds will go toward enforcing the measure.” Are they claiming that the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional? ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/2 "2024-12-24T15:34:19Z")
> **[Supremacy Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause)** > > The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, t The ... ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/3 "2024-12-24T15:40:53Z")
The text of the bill is [here](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00080I.htm). Essentially, it would set up this joint committee which would review “federal actions” (which would include rulings of federal courts) against the Us Constitution (to be read in light of “the plain reading and reasoning of the text of the United States Constitution and the understood definitions at the time of the framing and construction of the Constitution by our forefathers” - so essentially an originalist reading), and if, in doing so, it finds that the federal action is “unconstitutional” in that sense, then it submits that to the Texas Supreme Court. If that court agrees, it goes to the Texas legislature, and if that legislature agrees, it goes to the governor. At the end of the process, the “federal action” would supposedly have no legal effect in Texas. And yes, of course this would be be incompatible with the supremacy of federal law as interpreted by the federal courts, so clearly unconstitutional. Supposedly, the idea behind it is that Texas (and all other states) subscribed to membership in the Union on the terms of the Constitution as it was written, and if federal courts deviate from that by giving the Constitution a reading not intended by its drafters, then this would be beyond what Texas signed up for when it joined. As a European lawyer, it has close parallels to the way some national courts (in particular the German Constitutional Court) interpret the relationship between national and EU law (which also claims supremacy over national law within the EU). These courts asserted that if the Court of Justice of the EU adopted an interpretation of the EU treaties that’s incompatible with their wording, this would go beyond the assent of that Member State to membership in the EU, and the Member State would not be bound by it. Needless to say, the whole idea triggered a massive discussion among EU lawyers and did not fly well with the Court of Justice. ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/4 "2024-12-24T18:20:24Z")
If Texas decided to ignore a national law due to it’s non-originality interpretation, someone would file a suit against Texas and it make its way up to the US Supreme Court, which would rule against it based on the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution. If then, Texas simply ignored the Supreme Court ruling what would happen next? What are the consequences of a state defying the supremacy clause? Has that ever happened before? ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/5 "2024-12-24T20:18:57Z")
To give some context, Senator Bob Hall (the bill’s sponsor) is the most right wing member of the Texas Senate — which is saying a lot. Every session he introduces dozens of radical, batshit bills that go nowhere. I have no doubt that such is the case here, as the establishment conservatives don’t want their legislative agenda of dismantling public services and feeding cultural grievances to get distracted by this pie-in-the-sky proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/6 "2024-12-24T20:20:51Z")
It wouldn’t be the first time the Supreme Court was told to enforce a decision they made, is it? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/7 "2024-12-24T20:22:32Z")
I get that Congress acts outside of its enumerated powers and the courts have expanded the meaning of those powers and destroyed Federalism, but despite my opinion even I have to admit that this particular question was decided almost 160 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/8 "2024-12-24T20:34:34Z")
So you are saying that it is a moot point, like civil rights and access to abortion? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/9 "2024-12-24T21:36:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So you are saying that it is a moot point I’m saying if Texas wants to enforce it, it had better prepare for another civil war. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > like civil rights and access to abortion? WOW! Way to extend my point into a strawman. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/10 "2024-12-24T21:40:09Z")
Nope, just pointing out that “moot” just ain’t what it used to be. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/11 "2024-12-24T21:48:59Z")
You’ve just made your question moot. If the Constitution and precedent mean nothing any more, then the answer to every question about laws becomes: “sure, whatever they want”. Why bother asking if you already know the answer? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/12 "2024-12-24T22:01:03Z")
I _don’t_ know the answer to this complicated question, but usually the overly simplistic “Don’t worry-it has already been settled” turns out to be a bit wrong. If it passes there is possible clusterfuckery, and I am asking about the possibilities. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/13 "2024-12-24T22:05:51Z")
And you were given the answer, the Supremacy Clause. If the clusterfuckery throws out the Supremacy Clause then anything goes. It’s the basic “if we suspend the laws of physics, what does physics say about this situation?” question. Lots of opinion, but no possible actual answers. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/14 "2024-12-24T22:17:36Z")
I wonder if Texas is counting on the Feds saying for the next four years, “Sounds good to me.” then other states (like Florida) signing on. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/15 "2024-12-24T22:29:30Z")
I think Texas may be depending on certain right-wing members of the SCOTUS hemming, hawing and generally stalling while the state complicates matters as much as possible. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/16 "2024-12-24T22:48:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If an action is deemed so, no Texas funds will go toward enforcing the measure. Well hold on now. If that’s the consequence, then I’m not sure the Supremacy Clause really factors into it. Because there is also [anti-commandeering doctrine](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt10-4-2/ALDE_00013627/). States are free to decline to use _state funds_ for a whole host of things the federal government might like them to spend money on, whether the federal government is acting unconstitutionally or not. Indeed, the effort to compel a state to use state funding or other resources at federal direction could itself be unconstitutional. That’s the whole premise behind anti-commandeering doctrine. Yes, the federal government is supreme, but only in matters where the Constitution gives it the power to act. I’d be curious to know what the subtext is to the proposed statute. Is it just more posturing, or are there particular laws that its authors have in mind? Where do they imagine that the state is currently contributing funds to an unconstitutional federal government program? (If I had to take a guess, I’d imagine Medicaid, SNAP, and other welfare benefits that have some basis in federal law, but that the states may administer and supplement). ---
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2024, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/17 "2024-12-25T05:45:41Z")
I’m guessing, and this is only a guess, that they’ll use it to strip benefits from same-sex spouses after they determine that despite the prior SCOTUS ruling, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and other similar issues such as faith/indoctrination in schools. That’s of course if the SCOTUS itself doesn’t further kill prior rulings in a view towards the warped originality that even they don’t adhere too (see the rulings, the walk-backs, and the general horrific confusion on their gun control stance). If the proposer wasn’t such an edge case, I’d think it was good (in a very dark way) that they were trying this, because to me it says they were preparing for a state defense against _future_ rulings in a world where MAGA didn’t control all branches of the government by means fair and foul. But I think it’s more they’re emboldened and figure they can ride the current success into ever greater de-regulation and culture wars against their own in the major population centers. Or (as they have with abortion issues) drive those people out of the state (those that can afford it) and further secure their hegemony. I’d _almost_ want to see it succeed (in an equally dark and gloomy way) because it means that solidly blue states would do the same, and impose THEIR understandings of what the founders intents were, but that will play into my semi-expected “cold” civil war going forward and I can’t see it being healthy for the _nation_ for any extended period of time. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2025, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/18 "2025-01-01T13:12:49Z")
Isnt this just replicating the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2025, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/19 "2025-01-01T13:26:19Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > What are the consequences of a state defying the supremacy clause? Has that ever happened before? Yes, in the 1860s. ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2025, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118/20 "2025-01-01T13:54:33Z")
Right, I’ve heard about the Civil War, but in that case southern states attacked a federal fort. If Texas, or some other state, were to simply ignore the supremacy clause, but not attack federal troops, what would the feds do to enforce it? Stop all commerce in or out of the state? Or would using federal troops in to take over the state capital be their only option? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-texas-sovereignty-act-claim-to-render-the-u-s-supreme-court-moot/1012118.md?page=2)