How States Can Adapt Federal Laws

The United States Constitution declares that federal law is the supreme law of the land. This means that federal law supersedes state law, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this principle in several cases, including Marbury v. Madison (1803), where the Court ruled that Congress cannot pass laws contrary to the Constitution. However, the federal government cannot directly modify state law, as per the anti-commandeering doctrine. While federal law takes precedence over state law, there are certain powers that are reserved for the states, and Congress cannot pass laws on anything and everything.

Federal law supersedes state law

In the United States, federal law supersedes state law. This means that when federal and state laws conflict, the federal law prevails. This is known as the "Supremacy Clause" in the US Constitution, which establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under the authority of the US are the supreme law of the land. Judges in every state are bound by this clause, regardless of any contrary state laws.

The Supremacy Clause was included in the US Constitution to address issues with the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a provision declaring federal law superior to state law. As a result, during the Confederation era, federal statutes did not bind state courts unless there was state legislation implementing them. To resolve this, the Confederation Congress called for a convention in 1787 to revise the Articles, leading to the creation of the Supremacy Clause.

While federal law generally takes precedence, the relationship between federal and state laws is complex. In some cases, states have the power to make laws, but when the US Constitution grants the federal government the same power, federal law prevails in the event of a conflict. For example, the federal government has the power to regulate anything that impacts commerce across state lines, even if it occurs entirely within one state.

It's important to note that Congress cannot directly modify or rewrite state laws. However, Congress can pass laws that may influence or inspire states to modify their own laws. For instance, the federal government can tie education funding to certain conditions or threaten to withhold funding to encourage states to adopt specific laws, as seen in the case of raising the drinking age in Wisconsin.

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause, or Article VI Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, establishes federal law as the "supreme law of the land". This means that federal law supersedes state law in cases of conflict between the two. The Supremacy Clause is a "rule of decision" for resolving such conflicts, and it is up to the courts to review and invalidate state laws that conflict with federal statutes.

The Supremacy Clause does not, however, grant independent authority to the federal government to compel states to enact certain laws. This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Instead, the Supremacy Clause reserves all remaining powers for the states or the people. For example, the federal government cannot directly modify state law, nor can Congress rewrite a state law. However, Congress can pass laws that inspire states to modify their own laws. This can be done by putting stronger conditions on federal funding, as in the case of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

The Founders considered three mechanisms for resolving conflicts between state and federal law: coercive military force, congressional power to negative state laws, and adjudication under the Supremacy Clause. They chose the latter, indicating that they preferred to treat conflicts as judicial rather than political questions.

In conclusion, while states have the power to make laws, federal law takes precedence if there is a conflict, as outlined in the Supremacy Clause.

Federal preemption

There are three main types of preemption: express preemption, implied preemption, and conflict preemption. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states Congress's intention to preempt state law. For example, in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, a provision of the Airline Deregulation Act stated that no state could enact laws relating to the rates, routes, or services of certain air carriers, ensuring that states could not undo federal deregulation with their own regulations.

Implied preemption is more controversial and occurs in two ways: field preemption and conflict preemption. Field preemption occurs when Congress enacts a federal law that covers the entire field or subject matter, completely occupying the field and leaving no room for state regulation. Conflict preemption, on the other hand, occurs when a state law conflicts with a federal law, and the federal law takes precedence. An example of conflict preemption is Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, where federal law prohibited generic drug manufacturers from changing FDA-approved labels, thus preempting state tort law from holding a manufacturer liable for not adding additional information to a label.

While federal law generally supersedes state law, there are limits to federal preemption. The Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that force a state government to take action it would not have otherwise taken. Additionally, the anti-commandeering doctrine, as articulated in New York v. United States, limits the authority of Congress to directly regulate the operations of state governments. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that any withholding of funding to encourage states to adopt federal laws cannot be coercive and must be a relatively small amount.

State sovereignty

The United States Constitution and relevant case law define the lines of authority between states and the federal government. The Constitution provides that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the various states. This power has been interpreted broadly, creating a large potential overlap with state authority.

While the Tenth Amendment does not confer any specific powers, it reserves for the states and the people all powers not granted to the national government. Whether a state can exercise a particular power depends on its constitution and laws. The Supreme Court has expanded the concept of state sovereign immunity to prohibit citizens from bringing suits against states under federal law.

The federal government cannot directly modify state law. Congress can only rewrite acts previously enacted by Congress, and it cannot rewrite state laws or federal regulations. However, Congress can indirectly inspire a state to rewrite its laws by passing a new law that puts stronger conditions on federal funding.

In some cases, the states have ceded absolute power to the federal government, such as the ability to enter treaties with foreign powers. In other cases, the states still have the power to make laws, but federal law wins out if there is a conflict. The Constitution must grant the federal government the relevant power, and it cannot make laws about anything.

The Supreme Court has also barred the federal government from "commandeering" the states to enforce certain federal laws, such as gun laws and waste disposal regulations. The anti-commandeering doctrine limits the authority of Congress to directly regulate the operations of state governments.

Federal government modifying state law

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes federal law as the "supreme Law of the Land", taking priority over any conflicting state laws. This means that federal law supersedes state law, but only if the Federal government has jurisdiction.

The US Supreme Court has limited the authority of Congress to directly regulate the operations of state governments. This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Congress can pass federal laws that nullify or invalidate state and local laws, and it can incentivise states to modify their laws, but it cannot directly modify state laws itself.

The federal government can withhold funding from states until they adopt certain laws. For example, the federal government threatened to withhold highway funding until states passed a law to increase the drinking age. The Supreme Court has ruled that the amount withheld must not be so high as to be coercive.

In some cases, the federal government can regulate anything that impacts commerce that crosses state lines, even if it happens entirely within one state. For example, the federal government can regulate the price of marijuana, even though it is illegal at the federal level and legal in some states.

In conclusion, while federal law takes precedence over state law, the federal government cannot directly modify state law. It can, however, incentivise states to modify their laws and use other means to influence state legislation.

Frequently asked questions