Any Article III (constitutional) federal court in the Judicial Branch of government may declare a law or executive order unconstitutional under the doctrine of judicial review, but only if the law is relevant to a case or controversy before the court.
Because Executive Orders and Federal Laws are important, any decision overturning a one or the other as unconstitutional would probably (not definitely) be appealed to The US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality, and may overturn the lower court's decision on appeal.
Judicial Branch
Supreme Court
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine and invalidate legislation or executive actions that are found to be unconstitutional. This process ensures that laws and government actions align with the principles set forth in a constitution, safeguarding individual rights and maintaining the rule of law. It acts as a check on the powers of the legislative and executive branches, promoting a balance of power within government.
It means that the monarch acts on the advice of his ministers as regards the executive and as regards the legislative, will not veto a law passed after due parliamentary process.( Cannot make laws, or pass laws.)
The judicial branch has the authority to declare an executive act unconstitutional. This power is exercised by the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, through the process of judicial review. If a case concerning the constitutionality of an executive action is brought before them, the courts can rule that the action violates the Constitution.
Congress cannot declare laws unconstitutional. The Judiciary Branch may declare a law unconstitutional only if it conflicts with some provision of the State or Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but Congress, along with the States, can only amend the Constitution.
The judicial branch has the authority to rule that actions of the other branches are unconstitutional. For instance Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas by presidential order, later by congressional action; the US Supreme Court ruled that both were unconstitutional.
The branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—limit each other's powers through a system of checks and balances. This ensures that no single branch becomes too powerful or abuses its authority. For instance, the legislative branch can pass laws, but the executive can veto them, while the judiciary can rule laws unconstitutional. This interdependence fosters accountability and protects citizens' rights.
An act is a bill that has passed through the legislative process and been approved by a legislative body, while a law is a binding rule or regulation established through the enactment of acts or statutes. Acts have the potential to become laws once they have been signed by the executive branch. Both acts and laws serve as legal instruments that govern behavior and establish guidelines for society.
unless the state law is declared unconstitutional the answer is yes.
(Supreme Court)
The Supreme Court's authority to rule on legislative and executive actions stems from the principle of judicial review, which was established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803. This decision confirmed the Court's power to invalidate laws and executive actions that it finds unconstitutional, thereby ensuring that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. Judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but has become a fundamental component of the American legal system.
Both the state and federal supreme courts can overturn unconstitutional state laws; the US Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the constitutionality of federal law.