City Vs State: Who Trumps Whom?

The concept of preemption addresses the question of whether a city law can override a state law. Preemption occurs when a law at a higher level of government is used to overrule authority at a lower level. For example, state law can be used to preempt local ordinances, and federal law can be used to preempt state or local law. In the United States, federal preemption is grounded in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which asserts that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. However, in recent years, state preemption has also gained prominence, with state governments nullifying local laws that conflict with or deviate from state law.

Preemption: federal law can overrule local or state laws

Preemption is a legal concept that allows a higher level of government to overrule a lower level of government. In the United States, federal law can preempt state or local laws if those laws conflict with federal laws. This is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the principle that federal law supersedes conflicting state law.

The Supremacy Clause was first applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1796 case of Ware v. Hylton, where the Court ruled that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. The Court held that both states and private citizens were bound to comply with the federal government's treaty obligations. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court further clarified that Congress cannot pass laws contrary to the Constitution and that the Judicial system is responsible for interpreting the Constitution.

Preemption conflicts between state and local governments can arise due to differences in partisan makeup. For example, a Democratic-led city's efforts to increase the minimum wage may be preempted by a Republican-led state government. Similarly, a Republican-led locality's firearms resolutions may be preempted by a Democratic-led state government. However, shared party affiliations do not guarantee agreement between state and local governments.

In practice, preemption can be complex. For example, in Jennings v. City of Seaford, the city of Seaford, Delaware, enacted an ordinance mandating that all fetal remains from abortions or miscarriages be cremated or interred. The state of Delaware challenged this ordinance, arguing that it conflicted with the state's statutory scheme for the disposal of human remains. The court ruled in favor of the state, holding that the city's ordinance was preempted and invalid as it conflicted with state law.

Preemption can also occur when federal law supersedes state law. For instance, in LULAC v. Wilson, the Supreme Court determined the constitutionality of California's Proposition 187, which sought to place stricter restrictions on undocumented immigrants' access to benefits and public services. The Court ruled that most of Proposition 187 was preempted by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, demonstrating that federal law can overrule state law when there is a conflict.

Supremacy Clause: federal law supersedes conflicting state law

The Supremacy Clause is one of the most significant structural provisions in the US Constitution. It establishes the Constitution and federal laws as the "supreme Law of the Land", taking priority over any conflicting state laws. This principle, though familiar, is often taken for granted.

The Supremacy Clause was a response to issues with the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a similar provision declaring federal law superior to state law. This resulted in federal statutes not binding state courts unless implemented by state legislation. The Clause was first applied in the 1796 case, Ware v. Hylton, where the US Supreme Court ruled that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. The Court held that states and citizens were bound to comply with federal treaty obligations.

In subsequent cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress cannot pass laws contrary to the Constitution and that the Judicial system interprets the Constitution. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821), the Court further held that the Supremacy Clause gives it the ultimate power to review and overrule state court decisions involving issues under the Constitution and federal laws.

In practice, the Supreme Court has recognized various ways federal statutes can displace or "preempt" state law. Some federal statutes explicitly forbid states from enacting or enforcing certain laws, while others implicitly strip states of lawmaking power in specific fields. Even without an express preemption clause, valid federal statutes supersede conflicting state laws. This principle has been applied in numerous cases, including Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), and Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

State law typically trumps town law

In the United States, the general rule is that state law typically trumps town law. This is known as preemption, a legal concept that allows a higher level of government to overrule authority at a lower level. In other words, federal law can be used to preempt state or local law, and state law can be used to preempt local ordinances.

For example, in the city of Seaford, Delaware, an ordinance was enacted mandating that all fetal remains resulting from an abortion or miscarriage be cremated or interred. However, this conflicted with Delaware's statewide statutory scheme for the disposal of human remains, which requires an official record of death before human remains can be cremated or interred. In this case, the state law took precedence, and the local ordinance was struck down by a state court.

Similarly, in the Northern California city of Morgan Hill, an ordinance was passed requiring that the theft or loss of a gun be reported within 48 hours. However, this conflicted with California state law, which requires missing guns to be reported within 5 days. In this case, the state law again took precedence, and the local ordinance was preempted and ruled invalid.

It is important to note that resolving conflicts of laws can be complex. While state law typically preempts town law, there may be exceptions if the town code is passed pursuant to a power delegated within the Town Charter or if there is home rule granted by the state constitution.

State preemption: a state government can nullify a local law

Preemption is a legal concept that allows a higher level of government to overrule the authority of a lower level. This means that federal law can be used to preempt state or local law, and state law can be used to preempt local ordinances. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause gives federal law superiority over state law. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Supremacy Clause to mean that federal law is superior to state law and that the Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation. This was first applied in the 1796 case, Ware v. Hylton, where the Court held that a treaty superseded conflicting state law.

State preemption has been increasingly used in recent years, particularly during the pandemic. For example, in 2021, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a law preempting local emergency regulations and local police department budget reductions. In 2019, the state legislature in Missouri preempted efforts to increase the minimum wage in St. Louis. In 2021, a Florida appeals court upheld a 2011 law that imposed penalties on local government officials who enact or enforce firearms ordinances.

State preemption can occur when local jurisdictions seek to adopt policies that conflict with the prevailing statewide politics. For example, local leaders have passed ordinances to increase the minimum wage and impose gun safety regulations, only to have conservative state legislators nullify them. State preemption can also occur when there are differences in the partisan makeup of state and local governments. For instance, Democratic-led cities may be preempted by Republican state governments, and vice versa.

To control state preemption, it has been suggested that the number of votes needed for a state legislature to preempt a local initiative should be changed from a majority to a supermajority, making it more difficult to reverse local ordinances. It has also been proposed that states seeking to nullify a local law should be required to do so expressly and demonstrate a substantial state interest in the change.

Judicial system: interprets the Constitution and can overrule state courts

The US Constitution establishes a federal system of government, with power shared between the federal government and state governments. Each has its own court system, with the federal court system comprising three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court.

The judicial branch, as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government, has the authority to interpret the Constitution and decide the constitutionality of federal laws. This power of constitutional interpretation includes the ability to overrule state court decisions. The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the US, has the final say in matters involving federal law and can review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The Supreme Court first applied the Supremacy Clause in the 1796 case, Ware v. Hylton, ruling that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. The Court held that both states and private citizens were bound by federal treaty obligations. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court further clarified that Congress cannot pass laws contrary to the Constitution and that the judicial system interprets the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause was again cited in United States v. Maryland (1819), where the Supreme Court held that Maryland's tax on the federally-chartered Bank of the United States was unconstitutional as it effectively gave the state power over a federal institution, which would be inconsistent with federal supremacy.

In cases where a state court rules on issues involving federal law, the Supreme Court can review and overrule the state court's decision. For example, in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821), the Supreme Court asserted its power to review state court decisions involving constitutional issues. Additionally, in Ableman v. Booth (1859), the Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, citing the Supremacy Clause and holding that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict federal courts.

The Supreme Court also plays a role in preemption cases, where federal law is used to overrule conflicting state or local laws. For instance, in Chy Lung v. Freeman, the Court ruled against the detention of a passenger on a Chinese vessel, as the state statute conflicted with federal legislation's ability to regulate the admission of citizens. Similarly, in LULAC v. Wilson, the Court reviewed California's Proposition 187, finding that most of it was preempted by federal authority over the regulation of foreign nationals.

Frequently asked questions