City Laws: Can They Trump State Law?

The relationship between federal, state, and local governments in the United States is complex, and the question of whether a city's ordinances can override state law is a legal grey area. Generally, state law takes precedence over local ordinances, but there are exceptions. For example, in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not withhold Medicaid funding from states that refused to expand the program, upholding the right of states to make their own decisions. This idea of federalism, where states and cities have sovereign powers and can resist unconstitutional federal policies, has been leveraged by some cities to push back against certain policies of the Trump administration.

State law vs town law

The United States government uses a shared governance system, which means that there is a combination of federal, state, county, and local governments. While the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to override some state laws, states are generally free to create and enforce their own laws as long as they are constitutional. State laws typically address domestic affairs, and most areas of law are not explicitly given to Congress.

State law typically preempts town law unless the state law says otherwise. However, if a town code is passed pursuant to a power delegated within the Town Charter and the ordinance conflicts with a general statute, the town ordinance may supersede the general statute. For example, in Texas, cities have all powers that the Legislature could have granted them and did not expressly take away by legislation.

Conflicts between state and town/local laws can arise in two situations. The first is if you have to break the state law to comply with the local ordinance, in which case the state law takes precedence. The second situation occurs when the enforcement of the local ordinance would thwart the purpose for which the state law was passed, and again, the state law wins.

Preemption occurs when a higher level of government uses its authority to overrule a lower level of government. For example, state law can be used to preempt local ordinances, and federal law can be used to preempt state or local law. Preemption conflicts can emerge between state and local governments due to differences in the partisan makeup of the respective governments.

Local resistance to federal action

The United States has a long history of state resistance to federal government actions, which can be traced back to the original meaning of the phrase "the United States of America". State resistance to federal directives has become an institutionalised feature of US governance, with state officials challenging a number of federal policies during the Trump administration.

State challenges to federal policies are often rooted in competing partisan perspectives, where members of the minority party at the federal level launch challenges from state offices that they control. For example, during Donald Trump's presidency, state attorneys general prevailed in lawsuits that forced changes to his plan to ban travel to the US from certain countries and blocked the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census. State legislators have also enacted statutes that are inconsistent with federal policies, such as immigration and climate change, and have declined to help enforce these policies.

State resistance is also driven by conflicting intergovernmental perspectives, where state officials who lack meaningful input in the passage of federal policies seek to challenge and shape these policies after they are enacted. For instance, more than 30 states have received federal waivers to be excused from the full testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind law, with many states objecting to the cost of implementation and arguing that it trespassed on state responsibilities.

In some cases, states have also declined to participate in federal programs or passed policies inconsistent with federal policies. For example, a handful of states have refused to expand Medicaid or open health insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, and have barred local and state officials from cooperating with the federal insurance exchange. Similarly, Southern states have a history of resisting federal authority on civil rights for African Americans, such as effectively nullifying the 15th Amendment, which granted suffrage to blacks.

State funding and federal control

State and local governments have a long history of resisting unconstitutional federal actions. This strategy, known as constitutional resistance, has been used to protect the Constitution and uphold the rights of citizens. For example, in the 19th century, citizens of Wisconsin, led by a newspaper editor, Sherman Booth, resisted the Fugitive Slave Act, which they believed violated higher constitutional ideals.

Today, state and local governments continue to play a crucial role in checking federal power and safeguarding the rights of their constituents. Governors and mayors have spoken out against cooperating with unconstitutional federal actions, such as those related to deportation forces or the violation of religious freedoms.

Federal funding to states and localities typically falls into two categories: mandatory spending, such as Medicaid and highway funding, and discretionary spending, like education and community services grants. While the Trump administration has attempted to use federal funding as a tool to punish political opponents, the reality is that the president's power over funding is limited by the Constitution, legal precedent, and congressional appropriations.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that the federal government cannot force states or cities to carry out federal immigration enforcement actions, upholding the rights of states and localities to say no to participating in such enforcement. Additionally, any conditions placed on funding must respect states' 10th Amendment rights and cannot override constitutional rights such as free speech and due process.

In conclusion, while the federal government holds significant power, state funding, and federal control are subject to checks and balances that protect the rights of states and localities. State and local governments have the authority and responsibility to resist unconstitutional federal actions and protect the rights of their citizens.

Preemption conflicts

The preemption doctrine refers to the idea that a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority when the two conflict. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution underlies federal preemption of state and local laws. When state law and federal law conflict, federal law displaces, or preempts, state law.

There are three types of preemption:

• Outright conflict: When an ordinance directly opposes a state law.
• Express preemption: When a federal law or regulation contains language that explicitly preempts state law, or when a state law directly opposes a local power.
• Implied preemption: This occurs in two ways, field preemption or conflict preemption. Field preemption occurs when federal laws preempt states from regulating the same general subject. Conflict preemption occurs when a state law conflicts with a federal law, or when a state law creates an obstacle to a federal law's objectives. It can also occur when a local ordinance prohibits an act permitted by the state legislature, or when a local ordinance permits an act prohibited by the state legislature.

The Supreme Court tries to follow lawmakers' intent and prefers interpretations that avoid preempting state laws. When rules or regulations do not clearly state whether or not preemption should apply, the Court will look primarily at the intent of Congress to determine when a federal law takes priority over state law. This is because preemption cases often focus on congressional intent, and litigating these cases becomes a matter of statutory interpretation rather than constitutional analysis.

Local ordinances can sometimes preempt state law. Courts will presume that they should favour the validity of local ordinances against state preemption if significant interests for a particular issue vary from locality to locality, unless the state statute expressly forbids the ordinance. Similarly, state laws will usually prevail when state and local laws are in conflict.

State and local government powers

State and local governments have powers that can be used to resist unconstitutional federal policies and actions. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution empowers states and cities to resist federal transgressions of constitutional limits. For example, if former President Trump had formed a deportation force, state officials could have refused to hand over documents and records. Similarly, if he had threatened to limit press freedoms, state officials and citizens must have spoken out against him.

State and local governments can also resist unconstitutional federal policies by refusing to implement or cooperate with the federal government. For instance, in response to Trump's threat to cut off grants to sanctuary cities and block financial assistance to states that push back against his demands, governors and mayors of cities like New York City and Providence have indicated their refusal to cooperate with the federal government in unconstitutional policies.

State and local governments also have the power to create and enforce their own laws and ordinances, which can sometimes be in conflict with federal laws. In such cases, the general rule is that state law typically preempts town law unless the town code is passed pursuant to a power delegated within the Town Charter. However, if a local ordinance requires breaking a state law or thwarts the purpose for which the state law was passed, the state law takes precedence.

State and local governments can also exert their influence through funding decisions. While the Trump administration has attempted to control state and local funding by threatening to cut off grants and block financial assistance, the reality is that the administration's ability to withhold or condition funding is limited by the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law. Congress, not the president, has the "power of the purse," meaning the legislature decides on funding allocations, and the executive branch cannot unilaterally withhold or alter funding without congressional authorization.

State and local governments can also challenge federal actions in court. For example, Trump's executive order rescinding the ban on 'segregated' facilities for federal contractors conflicted with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state laws requiring integration. Any challenge between these conflicting laws would likely be settled in court, where state and local governments can assert their rights and resist unconstitutional federal actions.

Frequently asked questions