Over the long weekend I was watching a YouTube video in which Christopher Hitchens was on Anderson Cooper 360 debating against a Christian Family Council (Counsel? Or some such) spokes-leader. The controversy was over a state court’s ruling that it was unconstitutional for the government to officially recognize the National Day of Prayer that occurs in May because such recognition was seen as an endorsement of religion/religious behavior, which is prohibited by the first ammendment of the United States’ constitution.
[The debate itself has been kicked around in another Dope thread, I’m sure, so there’s no need to rehash it here.]
My question is in light of the quoted post: The primary argument for the Family Council spokes-leader was that the circuit court lacked the authority to label any law as constitutional or unconstitutional; that such jurisdiction was the domain of the US Supreme court. The quote above would suggest that spokes-leader was flat-out wrong. Or is the Wikipedia article (writer) mistaken?
He was wrong–or lying to suit his argument, depending on the actual level of his ignorance. It certainly isn’t restricted to the Supreme Court, and broadly speaking, the authority goes all the way up and down the chain. Constitutionality rulings by lower courts are subject to appeal, of course, and they often try to avoid constitutional questions by ruling on other bases. That doesn’t mean they can’t do it if necessary.
For an example, take a look at Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The case was about a law enacted in California to restrict sales of video games based on their content. Clearly, restricting media based on content raises First Amendment issues, and a lawsuit was filed by the EMA to overturn the law on that basis. The District Court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment and issued an injunction blocking its enforcement. Then-governor Schwarzenegger appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the law was unconstitutional. The Governator then further appealed it to the Supreme Court; the Supremes granted cert*, heard the case, and upheld the lower courts’ stance that the law was unconstitutional.
So, in this case, you have three courts at different levels ruling on the constitutionality of a law. Had the state not elected to appeal, however, the District ruling would have been final.
*Some considered this surprising, as there was no diversity in rulings on the issue in question. Twelve similar laws in various states had already been overturned as unconstitutional without ever reaching the Supreme Court. Most cases involving constitutional issues are never heard by the Supremes.
I was trying to be careful about what I said, but common sense had already told me that, c’mon, restricting constitutionality decisions to SCOTUS would be insane.
Clearly any judge has to be able to rule that some dumbass law that forces you to testify against yourself, or subscribe to a state religion, or says the local mayor has control over the US Navy, is unconstitutional, and is thus nullified.
What would it mean for the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, but a judge can’t invoke it?