Utah has signed a bill allowing the state to reject federal laws and judgments, as part of a series of Republican-led actions against perceived federal overreach.
Governor Spencer Cox of Utah signed the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” a bill he had presented, into law on January 31.
What the bill is about?
The legislation permits the Legislature to prevent a government officer from implementing a federal directive within a state if it is deemed to violate state sovereignty principles. supporters of the bill see it as an additional means of opposing the federal government.
Governor Cox emphasized the importance of balancing state and federal sovereignty in the constitutional system, stating that this legislation offers a means to resist federal overreach.
Professor Robert Keiter of the University of Utah’s SJ Quinney College of Law expressed doubts about the constitutionality of the Sovereignty Act, citing the “Supremacy Clause” of the US Constitution.
Utah supports states’ rights
A controversial topic since the US Constitution’s original framers, with controversial cases like South Carolina’s tariff escape and Southern states’ racial integration.
The Sovereignty Act’s Utah senator, Scott Sandall, expressed his hope that other states will
adopt the legislation.
In an interview ,he stated, “I think any state should be looking at adopting this.
“Don’t you want your state to have a really organized method for reviewing these claims and determining if the federal government is overstepping its bounds? This may be useful in any state, regardless of the party or philosophy you support, in my view.
HOW THE SOVEREIGNTY ACT CAME TO BE ?
The law was submitted at the beginning of 2024 in Utah, where there is a Republican supermajority. It was passed by the House with a vote of 57-14 and the Senate with a vote of 24-5.
Sandall identifies the Sovereignty Act as a “process bill” rather than a “policy bill,” establishing a formalized procedure for states to contest or overturn federal legislation.
Our attorney confirmed that the current process is constitutional, stating that a resolution of any type may or may not be constitutional, he stated.
However, he had certain policies in mind. He specifically brought up a disagreement with the EPA’s “good neighbour” rule, a measure designed to reduce interstate traffic in smog and air pollution.
Utah and the federal government are in conflict over public lands related to national monuments Bears Ears, Grand Staircase-Escalante, Northeast Canyons, and Seamounts Marine, with the state’s Republican legislature opposing initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Democratic candidate for governor, Rep. Brian King, abstained from voting on the bill. He stated in an interview that he thought federal court should be used to settle Utah’s disputes
with federal regulations rather than this new legislative procedure.
“I remained concerned that the bill would be utilised as a partisan or political stick rather than
an objective and evaluative instrument,” he stated.
The legal professor, Keiter, stated that the bill is now only “symbolic.” He projected that the
Supremacy Clause would probably cause the legislature’s concurrent resolution to be
invalidated if it really passes and overrides a federal regulation.
The bill may incur costs in court litigation and state employees may be compelled to follow state law instead of federal law, potentially putting individual workers in a legal bind. State employees face challenges in pursuing federal or state laws, potentially putting their employment at risk if they don’t comply,” he said.
Sandall stated that he thought the legislation was a part of the prolonged discussion over American federalism, regardless of the critiques.
“This discussion has persisted throughout our nation’s history. Does it fluctuate? Indeed. Do I still believe that states should exercise caution with it? Indeed, he remarked.
