Con Law IFederalism and State Sovereignty

Preemption

Valid federal law preempts state law expressly (by its terms) or impliedly, when federal law occupies a field or conflicts with state law (it is impossible to obey both, or state law obstructs federal purposes); there is a presumption against preempting traditional state powers.

Not started Jump to practice

The Supremacy Clause makes valid federal law "the supreme Law of the Land … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." When federal and state law collide, federal law wins. That is preemption. You saw the basics in Federal and State Law; here are the categories courts use.

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2.
Express and implied preemption.
KindWhen it appliesExample
Express preemptionThe federal statute says so in words"No State may impose labeling requirements different from these."
Field preemptionFederal regulation is so pervasive, or the federal interest so dominant, that Congress left no room for statesAlien registration (Arizona v. United States, 2012)
Conflict: impossibilityIt is impossible to comply with both federal and state lawFederal law requires a label; state law forbids it.
Conflict: obstacleState law stands as an obstacle to the full purposes of federal lawA state penalty scheme that upsets a balance Congress chose

Why it works

Why a presumption against preemption? States are separate sovereigns with police power over health, safety and welfare. Courts assume Congress does not lightly displace that power, so in fields the states have traditionally occupied, they look for a clear and manifest congressional purpose before finding preemption (Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 1947). The presumption respects both federal supremacy and the states' role. Some justices question the presumption in express-preemption cases, where the text should control.

Key idea

Valid federal law preempts state law expressly (by its terms) or impliedly, when it occupies a field or conflicts with state law (compliance with both is impossible, or state law obstructs federal purposes). Courts apply a presumption against preempting traditional state powers.

Worked example: Arizona v. United States (2012)

Arizona's S.B. 1070 added state crimes and powers concerning immigration. The United States challenged four provisions. How did the Court sort them?
  1. Section 3 (a state crime for failing to carry federal registration papers): field preemption; Congress occupied the field of alien registration.
  2. Section 5(C) (a state crime for unauthorized workers seeking work): obstacle to Congress's choice to penalize employers, not workers.
  3. Section 6 (warrantless arrests for removability): obstacle to the federal system for deciding removal.
  4. Section 2(B) (officers to check immigration status during lawful stops): not preempted on its face, before the state courts had applied it.

Answer: Three of four provisions preempted, 5 to 3 (Justice Kennedy for the Court; Justice Kagan did not take part).

Worked example: Overlap without preemption

A federal law sets minimum safety standards for a product and says nothing about state law. A state sets stricter standards. Is the state law preempted?
  1. Express: the federal statute says nothing. No.
  2. Field: minimum standards suggest Congress expected others to add to them. Likely no.
  3. Impossibility: a maker can meet both by meeting the stricter state rule. No.
  4. Obstacle: unless the federal purpose was a single national standard, no.

Answer: Probably not preempted. Overlap alone is not preemption.

Common mistake

Thinking any overlap between federal and state law means preemption. Many state laws coexist with federal ones; preemption needs express words, a field Congress occupied, or a real conflict. Check the four categories in order.

Preemption is how Congress normally overrides states, and it is lawful as long as the federal law regulates private conduct within an enumerated power. Compare anti-commandeering, which forbids Congress to give orders to state governments. Hamilton discussed federal supremacy in Federalist No. 33.

This is an educational course, not legal advice.

Practice

Pass with 3 right answers, the last 2 in a row. Each right answer earns 3 XP.

Loading practice…

Builds on

Leads to

Sources and further reading

@teddyrookbook GitHub