Short Answer

• Yes, Supreme Court decisions apply everywhere right away. (Unless the decision says it doesn't.)
• No, we do not have to wait until new laws are passed.

Explanation

Authority

[Marbury v. Madison (1803)][1] established the principle of ***judicial review*** under [Article III of the U.S. Constitution][2]. This allows the court[s] to interpret laws passed by legislatures. And this is the basis for applying the ruling everywhere (in the U.S.) immediately.

From Marbury at 178:

> *if a law be in opposition to the Constitution [...] the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. [...] the Constitution of the United States confirms [...] that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.*

Restraint

(Nominally) courts either interpret or invalidate existing law. In the former case, the law will persist (with the new clarity added by the decision). In the latter, the law will be struck as unconstitutional and, therefore, no longer exist.

Short Answer

• Yes, Supreme Court decisions apply everywhere right away. (Unless the decision says it doesn't.)
• No, we do not have to wait until new laws are passed.

Explanation

Judicial Review

[Marbury v. Madison (1803)][1] established the principle of ***judicial review*** under [Article III of the U.S. Constitution][2]. This allows the court[s] to interpret laws passed by legislatures. And this is the basis for applying the ruling everywhere (in the U.S.) immediately.

From Marbury at 178:

> *if a law be in opposition to the Constitution [...] the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. [...] the Constitution of the United States confirms [...] that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.*

Judicial Restraint

(Nominally) courts either interpret or invalidate existing law. In the former case, the law will persist (with the new clarity added by the decision). In the latter, the law will be struck as unconstitutional and, therefore, no longer exist.

Short Answer

• Yes, Supreme Court decisions apply everywhere right away. (Unless the decision says it doesn't.)
• No, we do not have to wait until new laws are passed.

Explanation

Jurisdiction

[Marbury v. Madison (1803)][1] established the principle of ***judicial review*** under [Article III of the U.S. Constitution][2]. This allows the court[s] to interpret laws passed by legislatures. And this is the basis for applying the ruling everywhere (in the U.S.) immediately.

From Marbury at 178:

> *if a law be in opposition to the Constitution [...] the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. [...] the Constitution of the United States confirms [...] that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.*

New Laws

(Nominally) courts either interpret or invalidate existing law. In the former case, the law will persist (with the new clarity added by the decision). In the latter, the law will be struck as unconstitutional and, therefore, no longer exist.

Short Answer

• Yes, Supreme Court decisions apply everywhere right away. (Unless the decision says it doesn't.)
• No, we do not have to wait until new laws are passed.

Explanation

Authority

[Marbury v. Madison (1803)][1] established the principle of ***judicial review*** under [Article III of the U.S. Constitution][2]. This allows the court[s] to interpret laws passed by legislatures. And this is the basis for applying the ruling everywhere (in the U.S.) immediately.

From Marbury at 178:

> *if a law be in opposition to the Constitution [...] the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. [...] the Constitution of the United States confirms [...] that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.*

Restraint

(Nominally) courts either interpret or invalidate existing law. In the former case, the law will persist (with the new clarity added by the decision). In the latter, the law will be struck as unconstitutional and, therefore, no longer exist.

Short Answer

• Yes, Supreme Court decisions apply everywhere right away. (Unless the decision says it doesn't.)
• No, we do not have to wait until new laws are passed.

Explanation

Jurisdiction

[Marbury v. Madison (1803)][1] established the principle of ***judicial review*** under [Article III of the U.S. Constitution][2]. This allows the court[s] to interpret laws passed by legislatures. And this is the basis for applying the ruling everywhere (in the U.S.) immediately.

From Marbury at 178:

> *if a law be in opposition to the Constitution [...] the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. [...] the Constitution of the United States confirms [...] that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.*

New Laws

(Nominally,) the court either interprets or invalidates existing law. In the former case, the law will persist (with the new clarity added by the decision). In the latter, the law will be struck as unconstitutional and, therefore, no longer exist.

Short Answer

• Yes, Supreme Court decisions apply everywhere right away. (Unless the decision says it doesn't.)
• No, we do not have to wait until new laws are passed.

Explanation

Jurisdiction

[Marbury v. Madison (1803)][1] established the principle of ***judicial review*** under [Article III of the U.S. Constitution][2]. This allows the court[s] to interpret laws passed by legislatures. And this is the basis for applying the ruling everywhere (in the U.S.) immediately.

From Marbury at 178:

> *if a law be in opposition to the Constitution [...] the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. [...] the Constitution of the United States confirms [...] that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.*

New Laws

(Nominally) courts either interpret or invalidate existing law. In the former case, the law will persist (with the new clarity added by the decision). In the latter, the law will be struck as unconstitutional and, therefore, no longer exist.