Enforcing federal law presents several significant challenges. Firstly, federal law only binds the parties before the court, which limits its broader applicability and effectiveness. This means that the impact of federal rulings is often confined to the specific individuals or entities involved in the case, rather than establishing a universally binding precedent.

Secondly, states have the authority to pass their own laws that may contradict federal legal precedents. A notable example of this is Orval Faubus’s refusal to comply with the Supreme Court’s order to desegregate. Such instances highlight the tension between state and federal authorities and the complexities involved in ensuring uniform compliance with federal law across different jurisdictions.

Historically, there have been instances where the government itself was not bound by federal law. For example, President Lincoln’s actions during the Dred Scott decision illustrate how federal law was not always adhered to by the highest levels of government. This historical context underscores the challenges of enforcing federal law consistently.

Additionally, federal courts frequently limit or overrule their own precedents. This judicial practice can create uncertainty and inconsistency in the application of federal law, further complicating its enforcement. The dynamic nature of legal interpretations and the evolving landscape of judicial decisions contribute to the difficulties in maintaining a stable and predictable federal legal system.

Given these points, one could argue that enforcing federal law is not only futile but may also lead to the conclusion that we lack a real federal legal system. The interplay between limited binding effects, state contradictions, historical non-compliance, and judicial limitations all contribute to the complexities and perceived futility of enforcing federal law.