What&#39;s the legal term for a law or a set of laws which are realistically impossible to follow in practice? As an example, at one point during New York's COVID vaccination campaign Governor Cuomo issued the following rules: If you vaccinate someone who is not eligible, you're getting a huge fine If you don't use up your vaccine doses, you're getting a huge fine So vaccinators were put in a seemingly impossible bind where they had to use up all their doses, but didn't necessarily have enough eligible people at their door to get one. Is there a legal term for these kinds of situations? NB: Please avoid discussing COVID, vaccines, Governor Cuomo or the specific details of his executive orders. This is merely used as an example of what I'm talking about and I'm sure I could look up a lot more examples if I knew the right term.
While less specific than the term mentioned by @DavidSiegel (i.e. an &quot;Antinomy&quot;), &quot;impossibility&quot;, &quot;impossibility of performance&quot;, and &quot;impracticability&quot; are more frequently used. If the obligation is imposed by contract rather than by a statute or regulation, the term &quot;frustration of purpose&quot; is also frequently used. Even more generally, a situation like this is called a &quot;dilemma.&quot; More obscurely, sometimes this gets litigated in the frame of whether non-compliance with the law was a voluntary act, i.e. the actus reus necessary to establish a prima facie case of a violation of a law imposing a criminal or quasi-criminal penalty. The &quot;choice of evils&quot; doctrine could also apply although this is a much narrower doctrine excusing liability than many people believe it to be. There are also a couple of other possible outcomes. Sometimes a court would treat this situations as an implied ambiguity or inconsistency in the law that calls for the court to interpret the true meaning of the statute or regulation. For example, in this circumstance, it is implausible that the statute or regulation was intended to put good faith vaccine distributors in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation where they would be fined no matter what they did because conforming to the law was impossible. So a court might conclude that the requirement that &quot;If you don't use up your vaccine doses, you're getting a huge fine&quot; contains an implied condition that this only applies if there are sufficient people who eligible to obtain the vaccination to use all of your vaccine doses (which as as matter of practicality is very likely to be true, so it is something of a false conflict as applied in most cases). But it isn't at all uncommon for people to put themselves in situations where their on ill advised or wrongful conduct puts them in a position in which now, after their prior bad acts, anything they do will be a crime or a civil offense, and they are indeed damned if they do and damned if they don't. For example, if you start to attempt to steal a car and see a baby in the back, you can either continue, and face kidnapping charges and car theft charges, or you can stop after you have already done enough to make you guilty of attempted car theft even if you abandon the crime at that point to prevent yourself for kidnapping the child. No matter what you do, you are stuck committing one crime or another. But you actions will determine which crime you will be guilty of committing. The fact that at the final moment of decision that determines which crime you will be guilty of, any choice you make will expose you to criminal liability, doesn't make these laws invalid, because this Hobson's choice (using the term only loosely) is one that you brought that on yourself.
No. The Fourteenth Amendment says: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; The Supreme Court has determined that this clause incorporates much of the Bill of Rights. The logic is mildly tortured, but it's basically that "due process of law" means "due process of a law that is compatible with the fundamental rights of a free society." This logic is known as "substantive due process," because it reads in to "due process of law" requirements about what those laws can do (as opposed to procedural due process, which is about the actual procedures being used). It's pretty settled that the Bill of Rights, after the 14th Amendment, should apply to the states. There's another possible way to get there: the 14th Amendment says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," which Justice Thomas recently thought meant that the Second Amendment applies to the states in a concurring opinion. But as of now, substantive due process is the standard logic for it. Virtually all of the Bill of Rights is incorporated against the states. There are a couple things which aren't (like juries in lawsuits, and grand juries), but the Establisment Clause is incorporated (see Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1).
There are, as far as I know, no &quot;FDA-approved&quot; vaccines against covid in the US. The FDA has given Emergency Use Authorization to some vaccines. This does not currently include the Johnson &amp; Johnson vaccine. It is impossible for a person to get the J&amp;J vaccine in the US, because it is not authorized, and J&amp;J does not distribute it. One could imagine an unauthorized foreign vaccine being smuggled into the US, but it would be illegal to distribute it. I assume that you specifically mean, can a person refuse to get a vaccination on the grounds that it only has an emergency authorization and is not actually approved: and can one sue an employer for firing you because you refused to get vaccinated? In general, the employer can fire for anything they want, unless you have an employment contract that limits the grounds for termination. There are discrimination-based grounds that they cannot use, such as race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, disability, age (age 40 or older), or genetic information at the federal level. Mississippi has no specific employment discrimination laws. Other that that, an employer can fire an employee for any reason, or no reason (Mississippi is what's known as an &quot;employment at will&quot; state). There are some state restrictions where it is prohibited for an employer to fire an employee for engaging in a specific required activity such as being called for jury duty or being called to military duty. An employer could not require an employee to break the law, but that is not applicable here.
Ultimately the answer (in the US) is the US Constitution. The courts pretty much have the unlimited power to interpret the law, and the limits on power mainly pertain to what the state can do. The length of the leash on the government depends on what kind of rights are at stake. The weakest and default limit is known as "rational basis", and comes down to asking whether a government action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest (such as stopping terrorist attacks) plus whether there was due process and equal protection. There are more rigorous standards (intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny) in case a law involves a "suspect classification", or in case a fundamental constitutional right is infringed. In the case of strict scrutiny, the government would have to show that it had a compelling interest in the action, the law would have to be "narrowly tailored" (i.e. does that thing and only that thing), and should be the least restrictive way to achieve that result. Roe v. Wade is probably the best-know example of that kind of review, which held that abortion laws "violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy". A court would not order a party to do an impossible act. A court could order a party to do something which the party had argued was impossible, but you can interpret a court's decision to indicate that it rejected the argument. The defendant would not shoulder the burden of proving that the action was impossible, though they would have to counter the government's argument that the act could be performed if they believe it is not possible. (In the Apple case, the argument would probably be some Apple-internal document that says "Yeah, we can do it, but do we want to?"). There is probably an expense-related limit in that the courts would not order Apple to liquidate all of their assets to comply. But: if a case were to end up at the Supreme Court, the court is stricken with mass insanity and arbitrarily orders a defendant to do the impossible, there is only the option of impeachment and Senate trial to remove the offending justices, and that is just not going to happen. There is no higher authority that overturns SCOTUS.
You've basically described two of the ends of the pole in theories of jurisprudence (there are dozens of ends). There is no theory of law that relies purely on &quot;spirit&quot; (also no theory that actually relies on the letters uses=d in writing law), instead, everybody interprets the text (the words enacted by the government) and some people supplement their interpretation with consideration of &quot;other factors&quot;, such as assumed legislative purpose. Certain scholars and judges are inclined to put most weight on the actual wording of the law, while others are inclined to let purposive considerations dictate the interpretation of a law. Interpreting law by W.N. Eskridge is an informative guide to supplementing a reading of the statute with anciliary considerations. Antonin Scalia is the best-known proponent of the textualist approach.
canada The fact that the chosen means could never have actually killed the target does not preclude an attempt conviction. See United States v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462: The only relevant distinction for purposes of s. 24(1) of the Criminal Code is between imaginary crimes and attempts to do the factually impossible. The criminal law of Canada recognizes no middle category called “legal impossibility”. Because Mr. Dynar attempted to do the impossible but did not attempt to commit an imaginary crime, he can only have attempted to do the “factually impossible”. For this reason, Mr. Dynar’s proposal that s. 24(1) criminalizes only attempts to do the factually impossible does not help him. An example of a &quot;factual impossibility&quot; cited by the court was &quot;impossibility due to inadequate means... For example, A tries to kill B by shooting at him from too great a distance or by administering too small a dose of poison.&quot; That this man’s design is premised on a mistaken understanding of the facts does not make it any less his design. A mistaken belief cannot be eliminated from the description of a person’s mental state simply because it is mistaken. Example 1: the curse In your examples, the person who took steps to kill a person via inadequate or factually impossible means could be guilty of an attempt. Of course, this is subject to proof of the required mental state (intention to kill) beyond a reasonable doubt. Example 2: hanging out However, the actus reus of attempt in Canada is that the accused must have taken &quot;some step towards the commission of the offence attempted going beyond mere acts of preparation.&quot; You haven't described anything about the person who hangs out with a militia that would constitute a step beyond a mere act of preparation.
&quot;Rule of law&quot; is one thing, &quot;giving equal rights and obligations to citizens&quot; is another. Qualified immunity, both in doctrinal and statutory form, are statements of law, e.g. saying that a police officer has the power to use force in a manner that others may not. &quot;Equal rights and obligations&quot; are actually &quot;equal, as defined in the law&quot;, for example a 6 year old has no obligation to comply with contract that that may have formed – there is an exception to the otherwise general rule, which is recognized by the law.
Could the Federal government say that if you are not vaccinated against Covid then you lose your welfare benefits? Would it be constitutional? What I am asking is, would a federal law (passed by congress) requiring people on welfare to be vaccinated be constitutional? For the most part yes. Arguably, a religious exemption might be required. But the federal government absent other countervailing considerations, generally has the power to mandate vaccination and other responses to a contiguous disease in cases where the vaccination would affect interstate commerce. All manner of things can be established as conditions to federal spending and federal programs. In cases where the program is purely federal, that discretion is almost unlimited (except for individual liberty considerations like freedom of religion). In cases where state cooperation is required, as noted in the answer by user6726, this discretion isn't absolutely unbounded if the state objects.