View source for Archive:Notwithstanding clause

<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the discussion has been closed. -->
{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Notwithstanding clause|timestamp=20261025172144|year=2026|month=October|day=25|substed=yes|help=off}}
<!-- Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=Notwithstanding clause|date=25 October 2026|result='''keep'''}} -->
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
{{AI-generated|date=July 2025|certain=y}}
{{Short description|Statutory provision overriding other laws}}
{{For|the clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms}}

A '''notwithstanding clause''' (French: ''Clause nonobstant''), (Lat: ''Non Obstante'') is a provision in legislation that allows a law to operate despite certain other legal rules, rights, or principles that might otherwise conflict with it. Such clauses are used to assert legislative supremacy and to prevent courts from invalidating or limiting the effect of the statute based on conflicting laws or rights.

==Overview==
In common law jurisdictions, a notwithstanding clause typically uses language such as "notwithstanding any other provision of this Act" or "notwithstanding any law to the contrary". It signals a clear legislative intent that the provision should take precedence over any inconsistent statutory, common law, or constitutional provisions.

==Use==
===Canada===
In some jurisdictions, notwithstanding clauses have been used to override certain constitutional rights where allowed by law, for example [[Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] which allows the charter to be overridden on a time limited basis by provincial legislatures. 
===United States===
It can also be used to ensure that statutory provisions prevail over [[common law principles]] such as [[due process]] if there is a clash, with [[Section 1983]] of the [[Ku Klux Klan Act]]{{sfn|Jaicomo|Nelson|2026|pp=161–183}}<ref name="USSection1983">[Institute for Justice (U.S.), [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-806/238607/20220923085926238_21-806%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Institute%20for%20Justice.pdf amicus brief discussing Section 1983], p. 3</ref> 

The [[Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996]] authorises the [[Homeland Security Secretary]], "notwithstanding any other provision of law" to waive legal, particularly environmental requirements blocking construction of border barriers.<ref>{{cite report |last=Garcia |first=Michael John |title=Barriers Along the U.S. Borders: Key Authorities and Requirements |type=Congressional Research Service Report R43975 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |date=27 January 2017 |url=https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R43975/R43975.13.pdf |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
In the United Kingdom, legislation has used ''notwithstanding'' language to clarify the relationship between an Act and otherwise applicable domestic or [[international law]]. The [[Safety of Rwanda Act]] stated that its provisions applied notwithstanding specified provisions of the [[Human Rights Act 1998]],<ref>{{cite web |title=Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, section 3 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/section/3/enacted |website=legislation.gov.uk |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> the Act was repealed in 2025.<ref>{{cite web |title=Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, section 40 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/31/section/40/enacted |website=legislation.gov.uk |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref>

During the [[Brexit]] process, the [[Internal Market Bill]] initially included provisions enabling ministers to make regulations that would operate despite incompatible domestic or international law.<ref>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-statement-on-notwithstanding-clauses/government-statement-on-notwithstanding-clauses</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Islam |first=Faisal |title=Will there be a further Brexit breach of the law? |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55144313 |website=BBC News |date=1 December 2020 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Brick Court Chambers | url=https://www.brickcourt.co.uk/brexit-blog/2021/01 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=True (Bad) Faith 2020? Part Two: Excavating the Legal Rationale for the 'Emergency Clauses' in the UK Internal Market Bill – RECONNECT | date=24 November 2020 | url=https://reconnect-europe.eu/blog/true-bad-faith-2020-part-two-excavating-the-legal-rationale-for-the-emergency-clauses-in-the-uk-internal-market-bill/ }}</ref> The House of Lords European Union Committee described the relevant provision as a "notwithstanding clause".<ref>{{cite web |title=The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill: Part 5 |url=https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/3019/documents/28597/default/ |publisher=House of Lords European Union Committee |date=16 October 2020 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> The provisions were withdrawn before the Bill received [[royal assent]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Brexit: UK and EU reach deal on Northern Ireland border checks |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55229681 |website=BBC News |date=8 December 2020 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref>

In 2010 the [[European Scrutiny Committee]] held hearings on the [[sovereignty clause]] in the [[2010-11 European Union Bill]], particularly about whether explicit notwithstanding clauses aimed at European Union law would be upheld by [[British courts]], with most but not all constitutional-law experts who appeared saying that courts were likely to apply them.<ref>{{cite report |title=The EU Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeuleg/633/63307.htm |publisher=House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee |date=24 December 2010 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> In 2004,<ref>{{cite web |title=Sovereignty of Parliament (European Communities) Bill |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/076/04076.i-i.html |publisher=House of Commons |date=2004 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> 2007<ref>{{cite web |title=Sovereignty of Parliament (European Communities) Bill |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/247 |website=UK Parliament |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> and 2009<ref>{{cite web |title=Sovereignty Of Parliament (European Communities) Bill |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/433 |website=UK Parliament |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> – during the Blair administration – a series of [[private members' bills]] proposed that a subsequent Act of Parliament could expressly disapply specified EU obligations by operating notwithstanding the [[European Communities Act 1972 (UK)|European Communities Act 1972]], and later more targeted bills were proposed on restricting benefits to UK nationals<ref>{{cite report |title=Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill 2015–16 |url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7491/ |publisher=House of Commons Library |date=2 February 2016 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref> and restricting [[free movement of labour]] into the UK.<ref>{{cite web |title=UK Borders Control Bill |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0053/15053.pdf |publisher=House of Commons |date=7 July 2014 |access-date=29 September 2026}}</ref>

===India===
* Ninth Schedule of the [[Constitution of India]]

==See also==
* [[Supremacy Clause]]
* [[Parliamentary sovereignty]]
* [[Derogation]]
* [[Conflict of Laws]]
* [[Statutory interpretation]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Sources==
* {{cite journal |last1=Jaicomo |first1=Patrick |last2=Nelson |first2=Daniel |title=Section 1983 (Still) Displaces Qualified Immunity |journal=Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy |volume=49 |pages=151–226 |year=2026|url=https://research.ebsco.com/c/phimeb/viewer/pdf/v56clsemnb|url-access=subscription}}

[[Category:Common law legal terminology]]
[[Category:Contract clauses]]

{{law-term-stub}}