(07-09-2014 08:17 AM)VA49er Wrote: 10th grade was a long time ago. What has to happen to overturn a US Supreme Court decision?
It depends on the nature of the decision. Technically only the Supreme Court can actually overturn a decision, but there are ways for others to effectively negate a decision's legal effects.
1. The only way for a decision to actually be overturned is for the Supreme Court changes its mind in a later case. Relatively rare, but it happens. This is more common in cases involving constitutional matters because it is so hard for anyone else to modify a decision. If Congress disagrees with an interpretation of a statute, they can just fix the statute making the Supreme Court more reluctant to revisit statutory interpretations.
2. If the decision was based on the interpretation of the Constitution then the only way anyone else can effectively overturn the decision is by amending the Constitution. Because they would be changing the Constitution it would not overturn the decision (everyone knows why the 11th Amendment was passed, but its text doesn't say the Supreme Court decision it is effectively overruling was wrong) but would overturn the legal effect of that decision.
3. If the decision was based on the interpretation of a statute, then all that needs to happen is for a new bill to be passed modifying existing statutes or adding new ones. Again, this only effectively overturns the decision but does not actually do so because it changes the body of law.
4. It can be ignored and changed circumstances can make it clear that the decision no longer has any legal effect. For example, there is an old decision that says a state can bar women from being lawyers. This decision will probably never be overturned because a state would have to pass a law barring female lawyers for a challenge to make it back to the Supreme Court, but the decision has effectively been reversed and women cannot be prevented from being lawyers.
The Hobby Lobby decision was based on an interpretation of RFRA and the ACA. RFRA was a statute passed in response to a Supreme Court decision,
Smith v. Employment Division of Oregon, saying that the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause did not provide a religious exemption from neutral laws of general applicability. It did not overturn the decision but provided additional statutory protection for the free exercise of religion on top of the basic protections provided by the Constitution. RFRA applies to all laws passed by congress unless there is language exempting the law from RFRA.
If the Democrats were actually able to pass a bill (politically impossible as has been noted) then they would be able to eliminate the religious exemption from the contraceptive mandate. Just as RFRA did not overturn
Smith, this would not overturn the
Hobby Lobby decision, so there is no separation of powers issue. It would, however, create a new legal framework effectively rendering the decision moot.
/
Dems push bill to overide SCOTUS on Hobby Lobby
