Archive:Notwithstanding clause: Difference between revisions
→United States: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 |
m 50 revisions imported: Import with full history |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{AI-generated|date=July 2025|certain=y}}{{Short description|Statutory provision overriding other laws}} | <!-- 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}} | {{For|the clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms}} | ||
| Line 13: | Line 18: | ||
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> | 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]], | 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=== | ===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> | 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 | 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> | 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]] | * Ninth Schedule of the [[Constitution of India]] | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* [[Supremacy Clause]] | |||
* [[Parliamentary sovereignty]] | * [[Parliamentary sovereignty]] | ||
* [[Derogation]] | * [[Derogation]] | ||