Nullification, Redux: States, the 10th Amendment, and Today’s Federal Pushback
More than 200 years after the Kentucky Resolutions, a version of nullification still lives. That phrase still matters because it captures a recurring tension: when federal power pushes hard, states push back. The debate is not academic for people who care about constitutional limits and local control.
Historically, nullification meant a state declaring a federal law void within its borders. Today it looks different but aims at the same point: stopping federal overreach and defending state authority. Courts have rejected outright nullification, so modern efforts wear new clothes and use different tools.
One clear example is state refusal to enforce federal policies that clash with local priorities. States often decline to help with federal immigration enforcement, and some use their law enforcement power to shield residents from certain federal actions. That approach shifts the battle from declarations to practical resistance.
Another form of modern nullification comes through state legislation that directly conflicts with federal rules. Legal marijuana is the poster child for that strategy. By passing laws that allow possession and regulate sales, states force the federal government into a choice: enforce selectively, litigate endlessly, or accept a patchwork reality.
States also use the courts as a strategic shield. When a state law conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, attorneys general file suits asking judges to decide the boundary. Litigation is slower than a political protest, but it has teeth and can preserve state prerogatives under the 10th Amendment.
Regulatory pushback is common in energy and environmental policy. States resisting federal land use restrictions or EPA rules frame their actions as protecting jobs and local economies. Those fights are about more than policy; they’re about who gets to decide how communities live and work.
Election law fights have sharpened the nullification argument too. States design their election systems under state law, yet federal oversight and litigation can override those choices. Republicans emphasize that election rules should stay close to voters, not be reshaped by distant federal mandates.
There are risks to this approach. If every state simply ignored federal law whenever it disliked the policy, the Union would fragment. Responsible state pushback chooses battles with legal merit and aims for court rulings that clarify, rather than erode, constitutional order.
The Republican view tends to favor energetic defense of the 10th Amendment and practical pushback against federal overreach. That means passing clear state statutes, using the judicial system, and making sure local traditions and policies get respect. It also means being strategic about when to fight and when to compromise.
Nullification today is less a dramatic proclamation and more a series of deliberate choices: laws, litigation, and selective cooperation. Those choices reshape federalism without rewriting the Constitution. They force the federal government to negotiate, litigate, or relent.
When a state acts, it signals two things: confidence in its constitutional role and skepticism of centralized power. That tension is healthy if it prompts legal clarity and respect for state authority, and dangerous if it becomes a habit of ignoring clear constitutional duties. The balance will keep getting tested as federal policy reaches into more aspects of everyday life.