3.2 Federal Preemption of State Law

Federal preemption is a key concept in the division of power between federal and state governments. It stems from the Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal law as supreme, allowing it to override conflicting state laws in certain areas.

Understanding preemption is crucial for grasping the balance of power in our federal system. It can limit state autonomy but also ensures uniformity across the nation. The Supreme Court has shaped this doctrine through landmark cases, refining its application over time.

Federal Preemption Doctrine

Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

Top images from around the web for Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

• 

  Federal Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Finding Constitutional Texts - Comparative Law Research Guide - Research Guides at Florida State ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Division of Powers | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federal Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Finding Constitutional Texts - Comparative Law Research Guide - Research Guides at Florida State ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

• 

  Federal Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Finding Constitutional Texts - Comparative Law Research Guide - Research Guides at Florida State ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Division of Powers | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federal Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Finding Constitutional Texts - Comparative Law Research Guide - Research Guides at Florida State ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal law as the "supreme law of the land" and takes precedence over conflicting state laws
• Federal preemption occurs when a federal law supersedes or displaces a state law regulating the same subject matter
• The doctrine of federal preemption is based on the principle that the federal government has the authority to regulate certain areas of law, and when it does so, it may override conflicting state laws
• Federal preemption can occur through express provisions in federal statutes or through implied preemption based on the intent of Congress or the comprehensive nature of the federal regulatory scheme

Purpose and Impact of Federal Preemption

• The purpose of federal preemption is to ensure uniformity and consistency in the application of federal law across the states and to prevent states from interfering with the implementation of federal policies
• Federal preemption can limit the ability of states to regulate certain areas of law and policy, reducing state autonomy and experimentation
• Preemption can lead to the invalidation of state laws that conflict with federal law, even if the state laws were enacted to address local concerns or preferences
• Federal preemption can create a uniform national standard in a particular area of law, providing clarity and consistency for individuals and businesses operating across state lines

Types of Preemption

Express Preemption

• Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states that it preempts state law on a particular subject matter
  • Express preemption clauses are typically found in the text of the federal statute and clearly indicate Congress's intent to displace state law
  • Examples of express preemption can be found in federal statutes regulating areas such as immigration, labor relations, and product safety (e.g., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) expressly preempts state laws relating to employee benefit plans)

Implied Preemption

• Implied preemption occurs when a federal law does not explicitly preempt state law but the intent of Congress or the comprehensive nature of the federal regulatory scheme suggests that state law should be displaced
  • Field preemption is a type of implied preemption that occurs when the federal government has occupied an entire field of regulation, leaving no room for state regulation (e.g., the regulation of nuclear safety by the federal government)
  • Obstacle preemption is another type of implied preemption that occurs when a state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress (e.g., a state law that interferes with the federal government's ability to establish uniform national standards)

Conflict Preemption

• Conflict preemption occurs when it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law or when state law impedes the achievement of a federal goal
  • Impossibility preemption arises when federal and state laws impose conflicting duties or requirements, making it physically impossible to comply with both (e.g., a state law requiring a warning label that conflicts with federal labeling requirements)
  • Obstacle preemption, as mentioned above, can also be considered a form of conflict preemption when state law hinders the accomplishment of federal objectives

Impact of Preemption on States

Limitations on State Authority

• Federal preemption can limit the ability of states to regulate certain areas of law and policy, reducing state autonomy and experimentation
• Preemption can lead to the invalidation of state laws that conflict with federal law, even if the state laws were enacted to address local concerns or preferences
• The impact of federal preemption can vary depending on the specific area of law and the scope of the federal statute in question

Benefits and Drawbacks of Preemption

• Federal preemption can create a uniform national standard in a particular area of law, providing clarity and consistency for individuals and businesses operating across state lines
• In some cases, federal preemption can provide a floor of protection for individual rights or consumer safety, while allowing states to enact more stringent regulations if desired
• However, preemption can also have implications for the balance of power between the federal and state governments, as it allows the federal government to assert its authority over matters traditionally regulated by the states

Preemption in Supreme Court Cases

Early Cases Establishing Federal Supremacy

• Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): This early case established the principle of federal supremacy in the regulation of interstate commerce, setting the stage for the development of the preemption doctrine
• Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956): The Court held that the federal Smith Act, which prohibited advocating the overthrow of the government, preempted state sedition laws, illustrating the concept of field preemption

Recent Cases Addressing Preemption and State Authority

• Arizona v. United States (2012): The Court struck down several provisions of an Arizona immigration law, finding that they were preempted by federal immigration law and policy
  • The Court found that the federal government has broad authority over immigration matters and that the Arizona law interfered with the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme
  • This case highlighted the importance of the federal government's plenary power over immigration and the limits on state involvement in this area
• Murphy v. NCAA (2018): The Court held that a federal law prohibiting states from authorizing sports betting violated the anticommandeering doctrine and was not a valid exercise of federal preemption
  • The anticommandeering doctrine prohibits the federal government from compelling states to enact or enforce federal policies
  • This case demonstrated that there are limits to the federal government's ability to preempt state law, particularly when it comes to directing the actions of state legislatures or executive officials
• Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren (2019): The Court upheld a Virginia law banning uranium mining, finding that it was not preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act
  • The Court emphasized the importance of considering the traditional powers of the states when analyzing preemption questions and the need for a clear indication of congressional intent to preempt state law
  • This case illustrated the Court's reluctance to find preemption in the absence of a clear statement from Congress, particularly in areas of traditional state regulation