Local Laws Vs Federal Laws: Who Wins?

The relationship between federal, state, and local laws in the United States is a complex one. While the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land, the interplay between different levels of legislation is nuanced and often contentious. This is particularly evident when examining whether a local law can overrule a federal law, a question that invites scrutiny of the broader dynamics between federal, state, and local legislation.

The Supremacy Clause

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Supremacy Clause to mean that federal law can preempt state law either expressly or impliedly. Express preemption occurs when a federal law explicitly states its intent to preempt state law. On the other hand, implied preemption occurs when the intent to preempt state law is implicit in the structure and purpose of the federal law. The Supreme Court has also developed the doctrine of field preemption, which means that some federal legislation implicitly prevents states from adopting any laws regulating the same general subject.

Federal preemption

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, establishes that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. This principle is known as "federal preemption" or simply "preemption".

There are three types of preemption:

• Outright conflict or express preemption: This occurs when a federal statute explicitly states Congress's intention to preempt state law. It involves direct conflict, where a state law directly opposes or contradicts a federal law.
• Implied preemption: This is a more controversial form of preemption, as it may be harder to prevent. It can occur in two ways: field preemption or conflict preemption. Field preemption happens when federal laws and regulations have so comprehensively covered a particular field or area that there is no room left for state regulation. Conflict preemption, on the other hand, occurs when state and federal laws directly conflict with each other, or when federal law dominates a field that a state law seeks to regulate.
• Conflict preemption: This occurs when an individual or entity cannot comply with both state and federal laws simultaneously, or when compliance with one set of laws puts the individual or entity in violation of the other.

While federal law generally overrides conflicting state or local laws, it is important to note that the authority to enact local laws is derived from either a state statute or the state constitution. Therefore, local laws are considered a form of state law. As a result, in cases where there is a conflict between local and state laws, state laws will usually prevail over local laws.

State preemption

In the United States, preemption is a legal doctrine that allows higher levels of government to restrict or prevent a lower-level government from self-regulating. While preemption is often thought of in the context of federal preemption of state regulation, it is increasingly used by states to limit cities, counties, and other lower-level municipalities from legislating across a broad array of issues.

The extent of a state's ability to preempt local government varies across and within states and depends on various factors. These include whether the state follows Dillon's Rule, which only permits local governments to legislate where the state has expressly allowed, or whether the state grants local governments more power to govern through Home Rule.

Express preemption

In the United States, the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, establishes that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. This is known as "preemption". Preemption can be express or implied. Express preemption occurs when Congress includes specific language in a statute that preempts state law. For example, in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law penalizing undocumented immigrants for working without authorization. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 contained an express preemption clause, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324(h)(2). The Court found that Arizona's law was "an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose".

In another example, a federal law empowering national banks in small towns to sell insurance (12 U.S.C. § 92) preempted a Florida law prohibiting banks from dealing in insurance. While the federal law did not contain an explicit statement of preemption, the state law stood as an obstacle to one of the federal law's purposes.

In Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that federal patent law preempted state law regarding the licensure of attorneys. In this case, the U.S. Patent Office had licensed an individual as a patent agent, but the State of Florida considered this to be an unauthorized practice of law. The Court held that preemption was "necessary and proper to accomplish" the objectives of the patent laws, despite Congress not expressly stating its intention for federal law to preempt state law.

In summary, express preemption occurs when a higher authority, such as the federal government or a state government, expressly states that its law supersedes a lower authority's law, such as a state or local law. This is based on the principle of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the supremacy of federal law over conflicting state or local laws.

Implied preemption

In the United States, the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, establishes that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. This is known as "preemption".

Preemption can be express or implied. Express preemption occurs when Congress includes specific language in a statute that preempts state law. On the other hand, implied preemption can occur when state and federal laws directly conflict with each other, or when federal laws dominate a field that a state law seeks to regulate. In other words, implied preemption occurs when it is impossible to comply with both a federal and state law, or when the state law hinders the accomplishment of the federal law's objectives.

For example, in Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that federal patent law preempted state law regarding the licensure of attorneys. While Congress did not expressly state that federal patent law preempted state law, the Court held that preemption was "necessary and proper" to achieve the goals of the patent laws.

Another example of implied preemption is Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), where the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law penalizing undocumented immigrants for working without authorization. The Court found that Arizona's law was "an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose."

It is important to note that preemption cases can be complex, and courts will often presume that state laws are not preempted unless there is a clear conflict or impossibility of compliance.

Frequently asked questions