That said, I think it's perfectly useful to demonstrate the possible intent of the founders. Even if you can't directly cite a law out of it, it can still be useful as a tool to figure out what the founders were going for.
Disclaimer: Not a legal expert.
Ex: Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976)
The Plaintiffs argued that they were denied Social Security benefits because they were "illegitimate" children of their father even though the plaintiffs were able to prove that they were related.
The court held that among other reasons, because as defined in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", that there was no differentiation between a "legitimate" child and an "illegitimate" child in the eyes of the government.
There's a few other cases, but that's one that I've studied the most.
The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity”
There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”
The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity”
There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”
The Supreme Court is itself the sole arbiter of this exception, so in practice they can cite it whenever they want to. The Federalist Papers are cited in a number of supreme court rulings. While one could argue that they are equally relevant to the Declaration, it would be hard to argue that they are less relevant.
It's superseded by The Constitution, the actual foundation for all American laws.
It's a nice thing Americans are proud of, but for example, The Supreme Court can't cite in a ruling, unless it's also in-line with The Constitution.