Answer
Constitutionally, there is nothing Congress can do to nullify a US Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court is an independent branch of the government, and the final authority on interpretation of law. The Supreme Court may nullify properly challenged legislation as a check on Congress, but the process doesn't work in reverse, with the Legislative branch nullifying Judicial decisions. If it did, the two branches of government would be deadlocked most of the time.
In practical terms, the two actions Congress and the President can take to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling is rewriting the legislation without the unconstitutional provisions; or ignoring the Court's decision altogether. Although they're not supposed to do this, there are plenty of historical examples where the Legislative and Executive branches abrogated the power of the Court and proceeded in opposition to a decision. One important, early example involved John Marshall and his series of ignored opinions concerning the Cherokee, as exemplified by Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832).
Answer
Congress can pass a new law in place of the law struck down by the court; a constitutional amendment would only be necessary when the court addressed point of law was directly related to constitutional issues, i.e., the Bill of Rights, or the Articles.
In the article, for The American Prospect, "Overruling the Court," Leon Friedman wrote:
"In 1982, for example, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to overrule a narrow Supreme Court holding in Mobile v. Bolden, a 1980 decision that addressed whether intentional discrimination must be shown before the act could be invoked. In 1988, Congress overruled another Supreme Court decision (in the 1984 case Grove City College v. Bell) by passing the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which broadened the coverage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legislative history of that law specifically recited that "certain aspects of recent decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court have unduly narrowed or cast doubt upon" a number of federal civil rights statutes and that "legislative action is necessary to restore the prior consistent and long-standing executive branch interpretations" of those laws."
Answer
They can propose a constitutional amendment.
To read the article in its entirety, see Related Links, below.
No. The US Supreme Court can nullify a challenged state law if it conflicts with the federal Constitution.
The Supreme Court can nullify an Act of Congress. They would have to say that it specifically contridicted the Constitution. The President could affect a law by refusing to enforce it.
supreme court
A state's legislature can nullify its own laws. A state cannot nullify a federal law, as the Constitution shall be "the supreme law of the land".
No the Congress can not nullify a ruling of the Supreme Court. The Congress would have to rewrite the law which the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional. Then the new law could overrule the Supreme Court IF the new law was declared constitutional if/when appealed.
The US Supreme Court can nullify state laws that conflict with the federal constitution. While the Court has jurisdictional limitations, they are not accurately described by the question.
States could nullify federal laws. That states could and should decide when Congress was passing unconstitutional laws PLATOO against a loose interpretation of the constitution
No, they can render an opinion as to it beng unconstitutional but they have no power to invalidate the law. They must forward it to the Supreme Court for their review and judgement. Only the Supreme Court can nullify the law and invalidate an Act of Congress.
President or Supreme Court can find it unconstitutional.
In the Constitution, it states that Federal law was supreme over State law. Therefore, the power for a state to nullify a federal law would go against the Constitution.
Congress can overturn a Supreme Court decision by passing a new law that directly addresses the issue ruled upon by the Court. This law must be signed by the President to take effect and can effectively nullify the Court's decision.
Andrew Jackson refuted South Carolina's claim to nullify federal laws by asserting the supremacy of the federal government over state actions. He argued that the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, did not permit states to unilaterally reject federal laws. Jackson emphasized the importance of preserving the Union and maintained that such actions could lead to anarchy and disunity among the states. He believed that the authority to interpret laws and their constitutionality rested with the federal judiciary, not individual states.