Fact check: What other Supreme Court cases have addressed the question of state secession from the Union?

1. Summary of the results

The question of state secession has been definitively addressed by the Supreme Court, primarily through the landmark case Texas v. White (1868/1869). In this case, the Court established that states cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, declaring any secession ordinances "absolutely null" ^[1]. The ruling, delivered under Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, explicitly stated that the Union is "complete, perpetual, and indissoluble" ^[2]. The Court did acknowledge only two theoretical paths to secession: through revolution or with the mutual consent of all states ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements should be considered:

• Historical Constitutional Theory: John C. Calhoun developed extensive philosophical and legal arguments regarding state sovereignty and nullification, presenting an alternative theoretical framework for understanding state rights, though these arguments did not translate into legal precedent ^[4].
• Modern Legal Interpretation: The debate has continued into modern times, with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia definitively stating in 2006 that "there is no right to secede," viewing the Civil War as having conclusively resolved this constitutional question ^[2].
• Legal Consensus: Multiple legal experts have consistently supported this interpretation, reinforcing the precedent set by Texas v. White ^[2].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question might suggest that there are multiple Supreme Court cases addressing secession, when in fact:

• Texas v. White stands as the primary and most definitive Supreme Court ruling on this matter ^[3].
• The question's framing might overlook the fact that this issue has been considered settled law since 1868, both through this court decision and the practical outcome of the Civil War.
• Those seeking to argue for secession rights might benefit from suggesting there's more legal ambiguity than actually exists, while federal authorities benefit from the current interpretation that maintains national unity.