We’ve been opening up the digital mailbag this week to look at the legislative questions keeping you up at night. From the tug-of-war between federal and state powers to the fine print of how Congress spending works, here are the plain-language answers to four of your most frequently asked questions.

— A reader from Colorado

A: Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), federal law is the ultimate "supreme Law of the Land." This means when federal and state laws directly conflict, the federal rule wins out technically.

However, in practice, a concept called the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from forcing state police or state state agencies to enforce federal laws. Because of this, states can choose to repeal their own penalties for cannabis, create state-licensed structures, and refuse to use local police resources to bust dispensaries.

The conflict creates real friction. For example, because marijuana remains controlled federally, state-legal cannabis businesses frequently struggle to access traditional banks (which are federally regulated) and face strict tax limitations, even as the federal government moves to adjust its drug scheduling classifications.

Source: Congress.gov / Constitution Annotated

— Jeremy, Ohio

A: It depends entirely on whether the Supreme Court based its ruling on a statute (a law passed by Congress) or the Constitution itself.

If the Court strikes down or interprets a federal law in a way Congress dislikes, Congress can absolutely pass a new, updated law to clarify its intent and effectively "override" the judicial interpretation. For example, when the Court historically ruled that existing civil rights laws didn't protect pregnant workers from discrimination, Congress stepped in and passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to explicitly change the legal standard.

But if the Supreme Court rules that something is unconstitutional, Congress cannot simply pass a regular law to reverse it. To override a constitutional decision, the legislative branch has to launch the incredibly difficult process of proposing a Constitutional Amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Source: Supreme.gov / United States Courts

— Anonymous

A: An unfunded mandate is a statute or regulation passed by the federal government that requires state, local, or tribal governments to perform certain actions or offer specific services, but provides no federal money to help pay for it.

A classic example would be a federal law ordering public school districts to upgrade their facility accessibility or implement specific testing standards without sending along the grant money to cover the local costs.

Because states and cities have to balance their budgets annually, these federal requirements can strain local finances, forcing local governments to raise local taxes or cut other public services to comply with federal law. To curb this, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) in 1995, which requires the Congressional Budget Office to explicitly flag and estimate the costs of any bill that imposes heavy financial requirements on states before it can be voted on.

Source: CBO.gov (Congressional Budget Office)

— A reader from Georgia

A: Earmarks—officially called Community Project Funding in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending in the Senate—are provisions slipped into spending bills that direct specific chunks of federal funding to a very specific local project, like a specific bridge or a community center in a lawmaker's home district.

Critics historically labeled earmarks as "pork-barrel spending," arguing they incentivize government waste and backroom political deals. The backlash grew so intense that Congress completely banned them in 2011.

However, leadership brought them back in 2021 under strict new transparency rules. Today, lawmakers are capped on how many requests they can submit, they must post their requests publicly online, and they have to certify that neither they nor their immediate families have a financial interest in the projects. They remain highly controversial but are often used by party leadership as a carrot to convince reluctant lawmakers to vote "yes" on major budget bills.

Source: House Committee on Appropriations / Senate Committee on Appropriations

We want to hear from you! Whether you're curious about committee hearings or how a filibuster works, just send your question to [[email protected]].