Can the federal government force state/local governments to share resources with neighbouring states/localities? There is an increasing amount of tension between multiple states associated with essential resources like water. Here's a link - https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2789784 . If a state tries to build a dam to block water flowing to another state, or uses some other drastic measure, can the federal government force one state to share water (or other) resources with the neighboring states? What are the legal implications? Would U.S. Supreme Court have to intervene?
Civil Procedure In Interstate Disputes Legal disputes between U.S. states (or between the United States government and a U.S. state, or both) are resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court and in these disputes, the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.* This means that the U.S. Supreme Court functions as a trial court, rather than as an appellate court in these cases. The original jurisdiction of the United States also includes cases involving ambassadors and suits by a U.S. state against someone who is not a citizen of that state. So, for example, if there was a question over the correct boundaries of the property upon which the French embassy is located, between it and a neighboring property owner, that would be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court in the first instance. In practice, the U.S. Supreme Court appoints a &quot;special master&quot; (i.e. a magistrate appointed on an ad hoc basis in that particular case only) to take evidence and receive legal arguments from the parties who then provides a summary of the facts and the relevant law to the U.S. Supreme Court justices which they use as a foundation render their opinion. Apart from the unusual forum of the litigation, the relevant law is basically the same as any other private civil litigation, although these suits tend to involve only moderate amounts of discovery and many key facts are routinely stipulated by the parties as represented by their state solicitor generals (the solicitor general is the lawyer within a U.S. attorney general's office or state attorney general's office in charge of state supreme court and U.S. Supreme Court litigation). But, nonetheless, these cases routinely go on for many years. Generally speaking, once the U.S. Supreme Court issues an order in an original jurisdiction case involving U.S. states, the U.S. state parties then comply voluntarily with the order, so it isn't necessary to have federal marshals or the U.S. military, for example, insure that the orders are carried out. Disputes involving local governments are usually handled in federal trial courts unless a state in which the local government is not located is a party and does not consent to another forum. U.S. states routinely waive their right to a U.S. Supreme Court or state court forum and instead consent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in cases where the U.S. state is just one of many parties with a claim in a bankruptcy estate, for example, for unpaid taxes or fines or contract debts owed to the state. For example, when General Motors went bankrupt, multiple U.S. states were owed money for unpaid taxes by this large interstate corporation, but all of the states owed money chose to participate in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court process by consent, rather than litigating their indirect dispute with other states over their share of the available assets in the bankruptcy in the U.S. Supreme Court, even though they had a right to do so. Substantive Law In Interstate Disputes In practice, most of the one to two cases a year on average filed in the original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court between U.S. states (on average about one of the two to three original jurisdiction cases a year involve disputes other than water rights or boundary disputes between states) involve water rights in the arid west of the United States, and these water rights are governed by interstate compacts, which are like treaties entered into between U.S. states except that they must be approved by Congress to be valid, or boundary disputes. From the link above: On average, only two to three of the nearly 100 cases heard annually by the Supreme Court are considered under original jurisdiction. However, many are still important cases. Most original jurisdiction cases involve border or water rights disputes between two or more states, meaning they can only be resolved by the Supreme Court. For example, the now famous original jurisdiction case of Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado involving the rights of the three states to use the waters of the Republican River was first placed on the Court’s docket in 1998 and was not decided until 2015. These interstate compacts have detailed provisions governing how U.S. states that are parties to the contract must manage their water resources to insure that a sufficient flow of water makes its way from upstream states to downstream states and then further (in some cases) to Mexico with whom the United States has a similar treaty governing water rights. For example, the interstate compacts prohibit upstream states from diverting too much water via groundwater wells from interstate rivers that are subject to the compact, thereby reducing the amount of water that downstream states receive. A suit on that ground involving Texas and New Mexico and Colorado and the United States Government, over water rights in the Rio Grande River, is pending right now. An interesting non-water rights case between U.S. states that recently came before the U.S. Supreme Court and was ultimately dismissed, involved a claim of nuisance filed by the States of Nebraska and Oklahoma against the State of Colorado, alleging that Colorado's state regulated marijuana industry caused a nuisance that affected Nebraska by providing a source for illegal interstate marijuana shipments to Nebraska which burdened state law enforcement resources. The Question So if a state tries to build a dam to block water to flow in the other state or uses some other drastic measure then can the federal government force one state to share it's water (or other) resources with the neighbouring states, because it's part of the same nation?? What &gt; are the legal implications? Would U.S. supreme court has to intervene to &gt; stop such events? Yes. The aggrieved state could demand that the other state not block its flow of water and could enforce its rights in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court can and will intervene in situations like these creates a strong incentive for U.S. states not to violate their legal obligations to neighboring states. The vast majority of the time, when happens in a situation like this is that the state attorney general or governor of the aggrieved state writes a letter to and/or meets with a counterpart holding the same office in the state engaged in the misconduct in person or by telephone and raises the concern and the dispute is worked out via direct negotiations between the parties. Just as 95% of lawsuits between private parties are resolved by settlement, the vast majority of disputes between U.S. states are resolved by settlement, although in disputes between U.S. states, those settlements are far more often reached before, rather than after, a lawsuit is filed. But, while the legal basis of the ruling in the interstate water dispute could be the fact that it is part of the same nation, and that was the legal basis of some rulings in the early days of the United States, these days the ruling would usually be based upon an alleged violation of an interstate compact to which all states involved and the U.S. Congress had agreed setting out the right and obligations of the respective states in detail. So, it is no longer necessary to resort to court made common law precedents to resolve most interstate disputes (although boundary disputes between U.S. states often do involve the common law of property rights). Also &quot;force&quot; is a bit of a dramatic choice of words for how the right is enforced. I'm not aware of any instance in U.S. history when a state government defied a federal court order in a case to which it was a party to take action once a judgment was entered in that case. (The famous Little Rock desegregation case in the 1950s in which the National Guard was sent in to enforce a federal court order involved defiance by a local government rather than a U.S. state.) Commentary It is somewhat remarkable how well the system of resolving disputes between U.S. states within a single country through the courts works compared to the dealings between comparable sovereign nations that have similarly strong economic ties to each other (with the obvious exception of the U.S. Civil War, which nonetheless probably would have happened much sooner but for the role of courts and federal institutions in resolving disputes between slave and non-slave states in the decades leading up to it). Part of why this works as well as it does is that the appellate role of the U.S. Supreme Court over state court actions, the role of the federal trial courts in sanctioning violations of federal rights by local governments and state officials, and the incentives created by federal statutes for state governments to submit to myriad programs coordinated between the federal government and state governments, means that state governments aren't nearly as autonomous and independent from each other and from the federal government as a naive cold reading of the U.S. Constitution would suggest. U.S. states are in the habit of conforming to federal law in comparatively minor matters, like how they handle serious criminal trials or how police exercise their discretion in traffic stops, so the legitimacy of the federal government and the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, to intervene authoritatively and decisively in their internal affairs is fully acknowledged.
Under the commerce clause, a state cannot (without authorization from Congress), forbid its residents to travel to another state, nor tax such travel. It cannot prohibit imports from, or exports to, another state. It cannot tax products from other states in general, or from specific states, at a different rate or in different ways from products made within the taxing state. However, a state government may decide where its own employees will go on official business. It may decide where its own funds will be spent, and what products or services it will purchase for its own use. It may decline to purchase products from states with policies it disapproves of. It may forbid official travel that it would be responsible to pay for to such states, if it so chooses. It can probably also encourage its citizens and residents not to travel to or buy from such states, as long as it sticks to persuasion, and does not impose any penalty or tax on those who do so trade or travel, and also does not refuse to deal with people who do deal with the state it dislikes.
No Governments have sovereign power. Subject to constitutional and legislative constraints, governments can change laws as they wish. That includes legislative changes and administrative policies. Most governments tend not to use this power arbitrarily because it tends to make investors wary - economists call this sovereign risk. Like any other risk, the higher it is, the greater return an investor expects - countries with high sovereign risk get less foreign investment and pay more for it. Further, most governments don’t make laws that are retrospective but unless there is a constitutional prohibition (like there is in the United States, for example), they can. So Ireland could not only change the rules going forward, they could change the rules that applied in the past (assuming the Irish constitution doesn’t prohibit this, which I don’t know enough about). If Ireland were to change this law, it’s likely there would be plenty of forward notice. The arrangement you spell out between mother and son is not enforceable unless it’s a contract and the presumption is that such familial agreements are not contracts. Such a presumption can be overcome by an explicit declaration by the mother and the son that they intend for it to be legally binding, preferably in writing. Now, governments can and do enter contracts which are enforceable by the courts but that is a one-on-one relationship between a government and a contractor; not a decree that must be followed by everyone. Unless, of course, they are the sort of government that doesn’t follow their own laws - I’m sure you can think of some - but they are huge sovereign risk.
Congress imposed price controls on various agricultural and manufactured goods under several of the "New Deal" anti-depression measures, particularly the National Recovery Act, or NRA. There were constitutional challenges to these, and the were upheld under the Commerce power. I'd need to do some research to find the exact cases. (Update: Relevant cases include Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942 (Federal productioin quotas for wheat, even if consumed on the same farm where it is grown), Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934) (Regulation of price of milk by NY state), Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U.S. 236 (1941) (state regulation of commissions charged by private employment agencies), Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944) (wartime Federal rent control), and United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) (Federal regulation of interstate milk shipment) See also the Hepburn Act of 1906 (Federal power given to the ICC to control railroad prices), this law review article on price control cases, and this article on Price Controls from the Legal information institute) Cases imposing minimum wage laws, both by Congress and by the States, were also challenged and upheld. Those are one from of wage control. I think that West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) was the key case on that issue. By the 1970s this was probably regarded as settled, and so was not raised in the challenge to the laws of that date.
Under Article VI of the US Constitution, the federal constitution and valid federal laws are the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state are bound to apply them regardless of anything in the laws or constitution of any state.* If a state legislature passes a law banning same-sex marriage, a state court is required under the federal constitution to instead apply the federal constitution (as interpreted by the US Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges) and rule as though same-sex marriage is legal. When it comes to a federal court, things are even easier: a state cannot command a federal court to do anything. A federal court’s authority is laid out in Article III of the federal constitution and in federal statute, which (per Article VI) is supreme over anything in the laws or constitution of any state. There have been times where states attempted to challenge federal supremacy. Normally, this is handled by going to federal court. Decisions in state courts can ultimately be appealed to the US Supreme Court, which can reverse them if they incorrectly applied federal law. Most of the time, that’s the end of matters: when a federal court rules, state officials comply. Occasionally, that’s not enough. If a state disobeys the orders of a federal court, they can be enforced by federal agents. If even that isn’t enough, the President can deploy the armed forces to uphold federal authority. * There are situations which are more complicated, like when something is a federal crime but not a state crime. I can do more research on that if you want, but for now I’m going to leave it at “it’s more complicated.”
You have a third option: Sue the district for violating state or local law. There are lots of recent news stories about people doing just this and winning. The US Constitution Can't Help You: The school district is not violating your constitutional rights by installing lights at the stadium. The only constitutional protection remotely connected to your situation is the "takings clause" of the 5th Amendment. It says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Unfortunately, the "takings clause" only applies if there is a "taking." A "taking" is generally understood to be exactly that -- you lose your property. The loss can be literal -- the government takes title to your house and turns it into a football field or freeway on-ramp -- or figurative -- the disturbance from the football field or on-ramp is so pervasive that your property becomes worthless. Since having the lights on will not destroy the value of your property, the takings clause does not apply to you. As one Justice said in a related case, the lesson here is simple: "the federal Constitution does not prohibit everything that is intensely undesirable." State or Local Law Might Help You: Even though you don't have a constitutional claim, depending on what state and city you live in, you may have a claim under state or local law. (These might be statutes, regulations, ordinances, or even your state constitution.) For example, in 2010 a group of home owners in Atherton, California who lived near the local high school sued when the school announced plans to install stadium lights. The suit claimed the lights violated local height limits, and that the night games would violate noise ordinances. The suit, plus a savvy pr campaign, got the school to agree to limits on night games. Atherton is not alone. All the way across the country, in Greenwich, Connecticut, neighbors upset about stadium lights sued and got an agreement about the use of lights. A search using high+school+lights+neighbors+sue turns up plenty of other examples. You will have to talk to a local attorney to find out what state or local laws you can use.
This is a hard question, but a good question. The following relates to the issue from the perspective of the USA. You ask "...if the US wants to invade France, can they officially declare war by...", You have to make clear what you mean by "can". If you mean whether or not the US has the physical ability to do this, then of course they do. If you mean whether they are allowed, then this is another question. When you ask whether something is allowed, then you have to make reference to a moral code or a law that determines what is and what isn't allowed (legal). Normally each country will have laws that govern what is and what isn't legal for it's citizens to do. That hard part is how this applies to nations. There are two sides to the question. (1) What are the leaders allowed to do under their own laws, (the domestic laws) (2) what are countries as entities allowed to do? (the international laws) It sounds a bit like you are asking about the second thing. Here treaties govern what is and what isn't "legal". However, usually when someone breaks a law, other entities have the power to enforce that law and decide (judge) whether the person has broken the law. The question is: who decides whether a country has broken a treaty or an international law? And if a law is broken, what exactly can be done about it? This is hard to answer. Consider for example the conflict in Ukraine. Here many will argue that Russia has piratically invaded Ukraine. There should be war between the nations. But Russia denies this and other world powers have done little beyond imposing sanctions. This illustrates how hard it is to deal with this question. One question that comes up is what the purpose of international treaties are if a country can just violate them without much consequence. Pointing out two points about this. (1) If, for example, a president wants to convince his/her own congress that the country should engage in war, then it makes a stronger point if you can show how the country you want to engage has violated international trities. (2) After you have won a war, you might want to prosecute the leaders of the loosing power. Here you will stand stronger if you can make references to some international law that existed before the conflict started. This second point is illustrated in the Nuremberg principles. Here it was exactly stated that "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment." According to the US constitution "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". That means that historically Congress has the power to decide where to wage war. The War Powers Resolution says, for example, that "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities ...". Note that this doesn't mean that the US has do formally declare war before going to war. Example: The Iraq War was authorized by Congress, but there never was a formal declaration of war. It is interesting that you ask about the timing for when the declaration should be given. The Japanese wanted to deliver their declaration of war just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. But because of issues with decrypting the message from Japan to the Japanese Embassy, the declaration wasn't delivered until after the attack. Remember also in all of this that the winning party to a conflict, usually decides what was and wasn't legal! One good reference for more on all of this is the report by the Congressional Research Service called "Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications". Here you can see more on what I have tried (and failed?) to say above.
It is certainly possible for the same action to break multiple laws, and be chargeable as multiple crimes. For example, shooting and killing someone may be assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder all at the same time. For a different example a person who simply omits to file an income tax return may be guilty of both failure to file a required return, and failure to pay tax due, and in some cases failure to par required estimated tax due as well. For yet another example, driving well above the speed limit may be a violation of the speed limit law, and also careless driving, and possibly also reckless driving. In the first case the assault etc may be lesser included offenses in the charge of murder. That means that they are automatically available to a jury (or judge) trying the accused, who can convict on one of the lesser included charges if they do not convict on the primary count. For the more general case, I don't know of any special term for the situation. It is not usual to have law A which says "do not do X", and also law B which says "you must follow law A". There is no general principle against having such redundant laws, nor is there, in the US, any Constitutional rule against such laws. But legislatures do not normally bother to enact such redundant laws. Laws which will sometimes overlap in their coverage, but in some cases do not overlap are common.