Although rejected by federal courts, nullification remains effective. And alignments flip. Southern states once defied federal civil rights laws. Now liberal cities refuse to cooperate with the feds.

*

It’s time for a look at how well the devolution is going. No, not the revolution, that’s something else.

I’m talking about legal and other forms of popular resistance, nullification campaigns and moves that empower citizens to respond to malicious prosecutions or the unjust enforcement of laws. It can even be used to free defendants.

As Donald Trump makes good on his threat to weaponize the Department of Justice, FBI and other parts of the administrative state against his “enemies,” both political and personal, nullification is looking like an effective tool to protect basic rights and fight back.

As I’ve mentioned before, the basic argument rests on the theory that the states created the national government. Therefore, they have the right to judge the constitutionality of federal laws and potentially refuse to enforce them. Nullification was used when American colonists nullified laws imposed by the British. Since then states have used it to limit federal actions, from the Fugitive Slave Act to unpopular tariffs. For a more detailed history, check out my original essay on the topic:

Various nullification pushes are gaining ground across the U.S. States from both ends of the political spectrum are passing legislation that refuses to enforce or actively blocks federal policies. The strategy is increasingly prominent across several key legislative areas. Recent legal commentary reveals a sharp divide over such tactics, which range from jury acquittals in highly polarized trials and state-level resistance to federal authority, to executive impoundment of allocated funds. Popular debate centers on whether such tactics are democratic correctives to an authoriatian overreach or threats to the rule of law.

Immigration & Environment:

Democratic states have historically blocked federal immigration directives. Similarly, several states maintained their own environmental standards aligned with the Paris Climate Agreement after national US withdrawal.

Gun Control:

Conservative states have heavily leaned into “Second Amendment Sanctuary” laws, prohibiting state and local law enforcement from assisting with federal firearms regulations and declaring that jurisdictions will not enforce state or federal gun control regulations they deem unconstitutional. These range from symbolic resolutions expressing opposition to strict ordinances that penalize officials for enforcing new restrictions.

Drug Laws:

The most successful modern example is the marijuana legalization movement. States decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis have effectively rendered federal prohibition practically unenforceable through sheer non-cooperation.

Juries and Justice:

Advocates in certain jurisdictions (such as cases of low-level drug possession or certain politically charged trespassing) are seeing defense strategies that encourage juries to acquit based on conscience, despite clear evidence that the law was broken. While federal courts consistently strike down formal state nullification efforts as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, the tactic of state-level non-cooperation remains a highly effective method to disrupt federal authority and force local policy changes.

Left-wing and advocacy groups have organized training seminars on how potential jurors can get seated and vote to acquit individuals on political or ideological grounds, even when evidence of a crime may exist. The DOJ has pushed back. Prosecutors have routinely argued that defense attorneys frequently employ jury nullification tactics by focusing on emotive issues or alleged police misconduct rather than the facts of the case. Many judges and prosecutors view this as a perversion of the justice system, as lawyers take oaths to uphold the law. Conversely, civil liberties advocates argue it is perfectly constitutional for citizens to speak about or advocate for jury conscience.

Legal scholars have criticized aggressive maneuvers by federal officials who claim inherent powers to “suspend” the operation of a law or halt funding for programs passed by Congress, which critics describe as administrative nullification. Commentators in the criminal justice and prisoners’ rights spheres warn that administrative nullification by state departments can be used as a reactionary mechanism to block carceral or penal reforms from taking effect, even after they have been successfully passed into legislation.

Recent nullification tactics include utilizing private civil enforcement to evade judicial pre-emption, refusing to enforce federal mandates, and advocating for “fully informed jury” practices to undermine the application of federal law locally.

At the citizen level, grassroots organizations such as the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) campaign to inform prospective jurors of their inherent power to acquit defendants if they believe a federal or state law is unjust. In response to these organized efforts, federal lawmakers have introduced legislation (known as the No Rogue Jurors Act) to prohibit federal funds from going to organizations that train prospective jurors to disregard evidence in favor of political activism or jury nullification.

Other contemporary nullification trends include:

Private-Party Civil Enforcement (The “Bounty Hunter” Model)

Instead of relying on state agents to block federal laws, states have designed schemes that empower private citizens to enforce bans through civil litigation. Known as the “Texas Model,” Texas Senate Bill 8 has allowed citizens to sue anyone who aided in an abortion, successfully evading standard pre-enforcement federal judicial review because state actors were not the ones enforcing it. This tactic has served as a blueprint for states attempting to “nullify” federal mandates or rights by shifting the burden of enforcement onto the populace.

“Anti-Commandeering” and Non-Cooperation

Based on the Supreme Court’s “anti-commandeering” doctrine, states and municipalities simply refuse to use their resources to assist federal agencies. State and local governments declare themselves immigration “sanctuaries,” forbidding local police from enforcing federal immigration policies, collaborating with ICE, or holding detainees on behalf of federal authorities. Numerous state legislatures (such as Missouri) have passed Second Amendment Preservation Acts (SAPAs), laws declaring certain federal gun control measures illegal within their borders, prohibiting local law enforcement from assisting federal authorities in enforcing them.

State Legalization vs. Federal Supremacy

States are aggressively creating regulatory frameworks that legalize acts still strictly prohibited by federal law. The leading example so far is cannabis legalization. Starting with states like Colorado, Washington, and California, jurisdictions have effectively nullified the federal Controlled Substances Act by legalizing the possession, sale, and use of marijuana at the state level.

While the theory of state nullification—where states attempt to declare federal laws void — has historically been rejected by federal courts, the tactic remains heavily debated in the context of federalism. Legal commentators note an ideological flip in these tactics. State-level resistance was once utilized by southern states to defy federal civil rights laws, but has been widely adapted by liberal and progressive jurisdictions in the form of sanctuary city policies that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration or law enforcement agencies.

While the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause dictates that federal law is the “supreme” law of the land, the tactical maneuvers I’ve mentioned are increasingly being used by states and localities to resist or fundamentally alter the impact of federal policies within their borders.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle of federal supremacy, arguing that states cannot nullify federal laws. However, if a Court majority doesn’t acquiesce to the Trump regime’s current push to nullify the separation of powers, due process and other constitutional guarantees, Trump will not hesitate to defy it. He has already taken the first steps by side stepping and declining to follow court orders.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Greg Guma is a Vermont writer, former editor, and author of 15 books, including Managing Chaos: Adventures in Alternative Media. Visit the author’s blog. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image is from the author

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.