Super statute
The term super statute was applied in 2001 by William Eskridge and John Ferejohn to characterize an ordinary statute whose effort "to establish a new normative or institutional framework... 'stick' in the public culture" and has "a broad effect on the law". As a result, it has a "quasi-constitutional" significance that exceeds its formal status as a statute with interpretive significance for other legislation.
Characteristics
Super statutes have a broad effect on law due to cultural influence, affecting even interpretation of constitutional provisions. The fabric of the society would be fundamentally changed by repeal. In practical political terms, super-statutes are embedded in the constitutional order and changing them carries political risks. When super-statutes conflict, the Supreme Court will trim the one less impaired by nonapplication.Adrian Vermeule criticized the category boundaries as opaque.
Other uses
According to Eskridge and Ferejohn, previous legal commentators had used the term "super-statute" for other purposes. Some writers have used the term to describe a constitution, e.g., A. E. Dick Howard, The Road from Runnymede: Magna Carta and the Constitutionalism in America . Other writers believe it's simply a big statute with no force outside its four corners, e.g., Bruce A. Ackerman, "Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law", 99 Yale Law Journal 453, 522 .Examples
Eskridge and Ferejohn give these examples noting others exist.:1227- Judiciary Act of 1789
- Bank Bill of 1791
- Civil Rights Act of 1866
- Ku Klux Klan Act
- Interstate Commerce Act of 1887
- Sherman Antitrust Act
- Pure Food and Drug Act
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Norris–La Guardia Act
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Indian Reorganization Act
- National Labor Relations Act of 1935
- Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
- Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938
- Endangered Species Act of 1973
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978
- Superfund