What rulings have courts made about challenges to the 16th Amendment's ratification process?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal courts have consistently refused to entertain challenges that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, treating the Secretary of State’s proclamation and Congress’s recognition of ratification as conclusive and rejecting litigants’ “non‑ratification” theories as frivolous or fraudulent [1] [2] [3]. Landmark Supreme Court and lower‑court decisions have instead focused on the substance of what counts as “income” and whether particular taxes are direct or indirect, leaving procedural ratification claims dead in the water [4] [5] [6].
1. The Supreme Court established the Amendment’s effect and left ratification questions to political actors
Early Supreme Court decisions following the Amendment treated it as the constitutional response to Pollock and accepted its practical effect on federal taxing power—most prominently in Brushaber, which explained that the Sixteenth Amendment removed Pollock’s apportionment obstacle to income taxation [4] [7]. The Court has also signaled that disputes about the status of state ratifications are political questions: the official determination—such as the Secretary of State’s certification—that the requisite number of states ratified an amendment is treated as conclusive and beyond judicial review, a principle courts have invoked when refusing to reopen the ratification ledger [3].
2. Lower courts have repeatedly labeled non‑ratification theories frivolous or fraudulent
Federal district and appellate courts have uniformly rejected modern “The Law That Never Was” and similar claims that procedural irregularities in certain state ratifications invalidate the Amendment; courts have not only dismissed those arguments on the merits but in some cases branded the advice promoting them fraudulent and sanctioned promoters under tax‑fraud statutes (United States v. Benson and related rulings) [2] [1]. In Benson’s case the district court found his non‑ratification argument meritless and characterized his commercial promotion of the theory as fraudulent, a finding affirmed on appeal [2] [1].
3. Courts focus on tax doctrine—not paper‑trail technicalities—when deciding challenges
Judicial engagement with the Sixteenth Amendment in the century since ratification has concentrated less on whether the amendment was properly enacted and more on its substantive reach—what counts as “income,” whether a particular levy is a direct tax that must be apportioned, and how pre‑ and post‑Amendment precedents interact (Eisner v. Macomber and subsequent doctrinal development illustrate this focus) [5] [6]. Recent Supreme Court docket entries and commentary show the Court still frames cases around those doctrinal questions—realization, distribution, and the direct‑tax line—rather than relitigating ratification mechanics [8] [6].
4. Courts explicitly reject challenges based on minor textual or procedural variances
When litigants point to spelling, capitalization, or timing irregularities in state documents—or to claims that a state lacked authority to act—federal courts have relied on precedents that treat minor variances as immaterial so long as the intent to ratify is clear, and on the political‑question principle that Congress’s judgment about ratification controls (Leser v. Garnett and later summaries cited by courts and scholars) [9] [3]. Educational and constitutional scholars likewise report that courts regard these objections as legally insufficient and have described the challenge narrative as repeatedly rejected by the judiciary [10] [9].
5. Alternative viewpoints and hidden agendas: why the ratification myth persists
Despite uniform judicial rejection, the non‑ratification story survives in tax‑protester literature and commercial schemes because it promises a simple legal escape from tax obligations and can be monetized—the courts have explicitly noted commercial motives in fraud findings against promoters [2] [1]. Scholars acknowledge that while the Amendment’s textual history is complex and the meaning of “income” remains litigated, procedural attacks on ratification have no traction in federal courts and are often advanced to avoid substantive tax rules rather than to resolve genuine constitutional doubt [6] [10].
Conclusion: the judicial record is clear and narrow
The case law leaves no room for a judicial undoing of the Sixteenth Amendment on procedural grounds: courts treat the certification of ratification as final, dismiss or sanction repeat litigants who press the theory, and devote adjudicative energy to interpreting the scope of income taxation rather than to re‑weighing state ratification paperwork [3] [2] [4].