Has nullification ever been successful?
Asked by: Prof. Elyssa Haley | Last update: June 13, 2026Score: 4.2/5 (3 votes)
No, the doctrine of state nullification has never been legally successful in invalidating major federal laws, though it led to political compromises like the Compromise Tariff of 1833, and jury nullification (where a jury ignores the law) has seen success in specific cases, especially during historical resistance to unjust laws, but isn't state-level nullification. Major attempts, like South Carolina's nullification of federal tariffs, failed constitutionally, with the Supreme Court ultimately rejecting the theory, notably in Cooper v. Aaron (1958).
Was the Nullification Crisis successful?
The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 15, 1833, but three days later, nullified the Force Bill as a symbolic gesture of principle. The crisis was over, and both sides found reasons to claim victory.
Has jury nullification ever worked?
Kalven's and Zeisel's study of the American jury found that juries acquitted when judges would have convicted in only 19% of cases, and of these, only 21% of the acquittals were attributable to jury nullification.
Why do judges dislike jury nullification?
Judges often oppose jury nullification because it undermines the rule of law, creates legal inconsistency, and allows jurors, who lack legal training and accountability, to make arbitrary decisions, potentially acquitting guilty people or convicting the innocent, thereby perverting the system they've sworn to uphold, though proponents see it as a vital check on unjust laws or application. They view it as jurors overstepping their role, leading to unpredictable and unequal justice, conflicting with their duty to apply the law as written.
Can a lawyer tell the jury about jury nullification?
Some judges forbid any mention of jury nullification in the courtroom. Defense attorneys cannot tell the jury they can ignore the judge's legal instructions.
Dolores Cannon's 2025 Prediction Is Coming True – Faster Than Expected
Was OJ Simpson an example of jury nullification?
However, the verdict in the case of People v. O.J. Simpson was not jury nullification. Those who suggest it was simply have not listened to the jurors' explanation of their verdict.
Does jury nullification have to be unanimous?
In what can be said to be a milder form of jury nullification, some of the jurors, or even just one in most cases, can hang the jury by maintaining a Not Guilty verdict even though they believe the defendant broke the law. There is no requirement that jurors must come to a unanimous verdict.
What if one juror disagrees?
If one juror disagrees in a criminal case requiring unanimity, it leads to a hung jury (or deadlocked jury), resulting in a mistrial, meaning no verdict is reached, and the prosecution must decide whether to retry the case with a new jury, offer a plea deal, or drop charges. In civil cases, rules vary, but often a non-unanimous verdict is allowed, so one dissenter might not stop a decision, though a full deadlock still causes a mistrial.
Can a juror get in trouble for nullification?
For the most part, the answer is no.
However, courts have also decided that they can remove jurors for considering their option to conscientiously acquit. This applies anytime until the verdict is officially rendered.
What is the most famous jury nullification case?
The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby.
How is jury nullification viewed today?
Jury nullification is best understood as a power, not a formal right. Jurors always possess the practical ability to acquit, even if they believe the State has proven its case, and an acquittal cannot be overturned.
What state tried to nullify federal law?
South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November. That Ordinance declared the Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and null and void within the borders of the state.
Which politician proposed the idea of nullification?
John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson's vice president and a native of South Carolina, proposed the theory of nullification, which declared the tariff unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.
Is nullification constitutional?
In 1958, after southern states refused to integrate their schools, the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron held that nullification “is not a constitutional doctrine … it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority.” Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny.
Who is the most powerful person in the courtroom?
The Judge is generally considered the most powerful person in the courtroom for maintaining order, ruling on evidence, and controlling proceedings, but the Prosecutor holds immense influence, especially in plea bargains, often deciding the fate of cases through charging decisions and sentencing recommendations, making them highly influential actors in the justice system.
Can you refuse a jury trial?
This right is also preserved in Article I, Section 16 of the State Constitution of California. However, there may be times when it's in your best interest to waive your right to a jury trial, whether in favor of a bench trial, where a judge decides your verdict or as part of a plea deal.
Why do courts hate jury nullification?
Arguments against nullification include that it would lead to anarchy; that it is unwise or unnecessary; that it is necessary, but better left implicit; or that an instruction on nullification would impair the responsibility of the jurors by confusing them on their duties.
Are civil cases easier to win?
Yes, civil cases are generally considered "easier" to win than criminal cases because they have a much lower burden of proof, requiring only a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not, or 51%) compared to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law, meaning less certainty is needed to win. However, "easier" is relative; civil cases still demand strong evidence and preparation, with success rates varying significantly by case type (e.g., car accidents are higher than medical malpractice).
Do any OJ jurors regret?
O.J. Simpson jurors' feelings about their "not guilty" verdict are mixed, with some, like Yolanda Crawford, remaining comfortable with the decision due to "reasonable doubt" created by police misconduct (especially Mark Fuhrman's perjury and racism) and mishandling of evidence, while others have expressed regret, with some feeling they let a murderer go free due to the Rodney King case's influence or errors like the glove demonstration, though some jurors deny the King case played a role in deliberations.
What did OJ whisper after his verdict?
After his 1995 acquittal, O.J. Simpson whispered to his lawyer, Robert Shapiro, "You had told me this would be the result from the beginning. You were right". This comment confirmed Shapiro's initial belief that the legal strategy would lead to an acquittal, despite the evidence presented against Simpson in the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.