The Government's Reach: Can It Supersede Laws?

The relationship between state and federal governments is a fundamental aspect of the US Constitution and a highly contested topic. The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under its authority are the supreme Law of the Land, taking precedence over conflicting state laws. This clause assumes the priority of federal authority and ensures that state courts and constitutions are bound by federal law. The Supreme Court has applied the Supremacy Clause in various ways, including recognizing instances where federal statutes can preempt state law, either expressly or implicitly. This means that federal law can supersede state law when there is a conflict, but it does not mean that states must base their laws on the same policy judgments as federal statutes. The Supremacy Clause is considered a cornerstone of the US federal political structure, but it also raises questions about the ultimate sovereignty of the nation versus individual states.

The Supremacy Clause

According to the Supremacy Clause, federal statutes and treaties are considered "supreme law of the land", with no explicit superiority given to either. Treaties made under the Treaty Clause and ratified by a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate are incorporated into US federal law. They are subject to judicial interpretation and review, just like federal statutes, and are recognised as legally binding under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has recognised various ways in which federal statutes can displace or "preempt" state law. Some federal statutes include express "preemption clauses" that forbid states from enacting or enforcing certain laws. Other statutes have been interpreted as implicitly stripping states of lawmaking power in specific fields. The Supreme Court has the power to review state court decisions involving federal law and constitutional interpretation, and it can overrule decisions by state courts.

Federalism disputes

Federalism is a contentious issue in the United States, with a long history of debate and ambiguity. The country's political structure is founded on the Constitution, which includes the Supremacy Clause. This clause establishes the priority of federal authority and the supremacy of federal law over state law. However, it is essential to note that federal authority must stay within the boundaries of the Constitution.

The relationship between the states and the federal government is a fundamental aspect of constitutional theory and a significant point of contention. The nationalist vision, which views the federal government as superior to the states, and the states as distinct political entities, are two contrasting interpretations of federalism. These differing perspectives have led to disputes, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis, where policy entrepreneurs advocated for their preferred policies, often at the expense of federalism.

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, asserts that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under its authority are the "supreme Law of the Land." This clause ensures that federal laws and treaties take precedence over conflicting state laws. The Supreme Court has recognized various ways in which federal statutes can supersede state law, either explicitly through "preemption clauses" or implicitly by stripping states of lawmaking power in specific fields.

The interpretation of federalism is a complex issue, with scholars struggling to define the term consistently. S. Rufus Davis, in 1978, suggested that the Latin term "foedus" is the tie that binds the various meanings of federalism, implying a promise and cooperation between separate entities to achieve a common purpose. However, the ambiguity in the definition allows partisans to select elements of federalism that align with their biases, contributing to divisive politics.

To address these disputes and improve constitutional literacy, it is crucial to understand federalism from multiple perspectives. Open and honest communication, compromise, and agreement on the basic purposes of the union are necessary for effective public policies that are broadly accepted and achieve their objectives. Examining public policy models and theories of power division between the federal and state governments can provide valuable insights into the complex dynamics of federalism in the United States.

Preemption doctrine

The preemption doctrine is a cornerstone of the United States' federal political structure. It refers to the idea that a higher authority of law will supersede or displace the law of a lower authority when the two conflict. This doctrine is derived from the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, also known as the Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, federal laws made under it, and treaties made under its authority as the "supreme Law of the Land," taking precedence over conflicting state laws. It ensures that both states and private citizens comply with federal treaty obligations and that federal statutes and treaties adhere to the Constitution's parameters. The Supremacy Clause does not dictate that states must base their laws on federal policy judgments; instead, it recognises the priority of federal authority when conflicts arise.

The preemption doctrine applies to conflicts between state and federal laws, with federal law superseding state law. For example, the Voting Rights Act, an act of Congress, supersedes state constitutions, and FDA regulations may override state court judgments regarding prescription drugs. Congress has preempted state regulation in various areas, such as medical devices, and allowed federal agencies to set national minimum standards in other areas, like prescription drug labels, without preventing states from imposing more stringent standards.

Preemption can occur in three forms: outright conflict, express preemption, and implied preemption. Outright conflict arises when a local ordinance directly opposes a state law. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly confirms Congress's intention to supersede state law. Implied preemption, which is more challenging to prevent, can manifest as conflict preemption or field preemption. Conflict preemption occurs when a local ordinance contradicts or prohibits acts permitted by state legislation. Field preemption happens when the state legislature intends to occupy a specific field, preempting local municipalities from enacting legislation within that domain.

While the preemption doctrine primarily addresses conflicts between federal and state laws, it also applies to conflicts between state and local laws. Generally, state law prevails over local laws, but local ordinances may supersede state law if significant interests for an issue vary across localities. In such cases, courts will uphold the validity of local ordinances unless expressly forbidden by state statute.

State law enforcement

In the United States, the legal system is built on a complex hierarchy of laws, with the US Constitution at the pinnacle. This hierarchy establishes a framework that ensures consistency, order, and lawful governance, allowing laws to be classified based on their source of authority and their level of superiority over other laws.

When it comes to state law enforcement, it is important to note that local ordinances generally cannot supersede state law. State law is typically given precedence over local ordinances. This means that if a local ordinance contradicts a state law, the state law will prevail. For example, in matters such as homeowners' associations, which may be regulated by both state and local laws, state laws provide a baseline and take precedence in the event of a conflict.

However, the relationship between state law and federal law is more complex. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, take priority over conflicting state laws. Federal law is considered supreme, and state courts and constitutions are bound to comply with it. Nevertheless, federal statutes and treaties must stay within the boundaries of the Constitution and cannot violate constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights.

In practice, this complex interplay between state and federal law has significant implications for state law enforcement. For example, in response to calls for reform following the death of George Floyd, states have enacted various legislative policing reforms. These include changes to use-of-force standards, restrictions on the use of less-lethal weapons during demonstrations, and enhanced law enforcement oversight. While states have the authority to implement these reforms, they must still operate within the boundaries of federal law and the US Constitution.

US constitutional history

The relationship between the states and the federal government is one of the most fundamental and contested fault lines of US constitutional theory. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under its authority are the "supreme Law of the Land", taking priority over conflicting state laws. This clause was first applied in 1796 in the case of Ware v. Hylton, where the US Supreme Court ruled that a treaty superseded conflicting state law.

The Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, but only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution. It is considered a cornerstone of the US federal political structure, underpinning the broader doctrine of preemption. This means that when laws are in conflict, the law of a higher authority can preempt the law of a lower authority if its superiority is expressly stated or implied.

The relationship between state and federal authority has been a long-standing debate in the US, with the nationalist vision arguing for a single national people, represented by the federal government, and the federalist vision imagining states delegating some powers to a federal government acting as their agent. This tension was evident during the Philadelphia Convention in May 1787, when Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia presented "the Virginia plan", which included a proposal to empower the National Legislature to negative all laws passed by the states that contravened the articles of the Union or any treaties. While this proposal was initially supported, a motion to extend the congressional "negative" to reach all state laws deemed "improper" was defeated.

The Supremacy Clause has been defended as vital to the functioning of the nation, ensuring that the federal government is not subservient to various state constitutions. However, it is also controversial, as it allows federal statutes and treaties to override aspects of each state's constitution and bill of rights. In modern times, the Supreme Court has recognized various ways in which federal statutes can displace or "preempt" state law, including express preemption clauses and implicit stripping of states' lawmaking power.

The interpretation and application of the Supremacy Clause continue to shape the dynamic between the states and the federal government in the US, with the Supreme Court playing a crucial role in resolving conflicts between state and federal laws.

Frequently asked questions