Section 1.  This Constitution is the expression of the sovereignty of the people and is the supreme law of the Federated States of Micronesia.  An act of the Government in conflict with this Constitution is invalid to the extent of conflict.

Case annotations:  The Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia is the supreme law and the decisions of the FSM Supreme Court must be consistent with it.  Truk v. Hartman, 1 FSM Intrm. 174, 176-77 (Truk 1982).

While FSM Constitution is supreme law of the land and FSM Supreme Court may under no circumstances acquiesce in unconstitutional governmental action, states should be given full opportunity to exercise their legitimate powers in manner consistent with commands of Constitution without unnecessary intervention by natíl courts.  Etpison v. Perman, 1 FSM Intrm. 405, 428 (Pon. 1984).

Failure to apply constitutional holding retroactively does not violate supremacy clause of Constitution, FSM Const. art. II, ß 1.  To the contrary, courts may choose between prospective and retroactive application in order to avert injustice or hardship.  Innocenti v. Wainit, 2 FSM Intrm. 173, 184-5 (App. 1986).

A state law provision attempting to place "original and exclusive jurisdiction" in Yap State Court cannot divest a natíl court of responsibilities placed upon it by the natíl constitution, which is "supreme law of the Federated States of Micronesia."  Gimnang v. Yap, 5 FSM Intrm. 13, 23 (App. 1991).

It is duty of FSM Supreme Court to review any natíl law, including a treaty such as the Compact of Free Association, in response to a claim that the law or treaty violates constitutional rights, and if any provision of the Compact is contrary to the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, then that provision must be set aside as without effect.Samuel v. Pryor, 5 FSM Intrm. 91, 98 (Pon. 1991).