State Vs Federal Law: Who Wins?

The United States has a federalist system of government, which means that while the federal government has certain powers, each state also has its own government with its own powers. This can lead to conflicts between federal and state laws, raising the question: can a state create a law that violates federal law? The answer is yes, and this is where the concept of federal preemption comes in. Federal preemption is a principle in the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which states that federal law and the Constitution take precedence over conflicting state laws. This means that if a state law contradicts or interferes with federal law, the federal law prevails, and the state law is considered void. However, it's important to note that state law violations are handled in state courts, while violations of federal law fall under the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Federal vs state criminal laws

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law in the event of a conflict. This means that a state cannot create a law that violates federal law. If a state law conflicts with a federal statute, treaty, or constitutional provision, it is considered void and without legal foundation.

For example, a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the execution of any process issued to enforce a federal court sentence on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was deemed unconstitutional. The state law could not annul the judgment of a US court and destroy rights acquired under it.

In the context of criminal law, the jurisdiction of the offence determines whether federal or state law applies. Violations of federal law are heard in federal court, while state law violations are heard in state court. Federal crimes include those committed on federal property, such as possession of controlled substances in California. Sentencing in federal courts can differ significantly from state courts, with federal judges guided by pre-sentence reports from federal probation officers.

In cases where an individual violates both state and federal laws, the federal prosecution takes precedence, and the individual serves the federal sentence first. However, double jeopardy rules do not apply, and the state can still prosecute the individual separately under state law after they complete their federal sentence.

State preemption of local law

In the United States, the Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under the authority of the United States take priority over any conflicting rules of state law. This means that state or local laws that conflict with federal statutes or treaties are considered void, not because they violate the Constitution, but because they conflict with federal laws. This is known as preemption.

Preemption can occur in several ways. Outright conflict happens when a local ordinance directly opposes a state law. Express preemption occurs when a state law directly opposes a local power. Implied preemption, a more controversial doctrine, occurs when the local ordinance prohibits an act permitted by the state legislature, or when a local ordinance permits an act prohibited by the state legislature. It can also occur when there is a clear legislative intent that the "field" is preempted by state law, meaning there is an extensive scope of state regulation that reflects a state intent to preempt all local regulations in a particular area.

Courts have developed various tests to determine when a state legislature has preempted a particular field, such as the seven-part test issued in Allied Vending Co. v. Bowie (1993). In general, courts begin with a presumption that state laws are not preempted. However, if a federal statute validly strips states of the power to enact or enforce certain laws, then the Supremacy Clause requires courts to uphold the federal directive.

While preemption typically refers to federal law taking precedence over state law, there are also cases where local ordinances may preempt state law. According to City of Riverside v. Island Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center Inc. (2013), if significant interests for a particular issue vary from locality to locality, courts will presume that they should favor the validity of local ordinances over state preemption, unless the state statute expressly forbids the ordinance.

Federal preemption of state law

In the United States, federal preemption of state law is a principle that establishes federal law as superseding conflicting state laws. This principle is derived from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under the authority of the United States take precedence over any contrary state laws or constitutions. In other words, if a state law contradicts or interferes with a federal statute, treaty, or constitutional provision, the state law is considered void and without legal effect.

The Supremacy Clause plays a crucial role in ensuring that the United States, as a nation, presents a unified front in its international obligations. For example, after the Revolutionary War, the United States promised in the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain that creditors on both sides would be able to recover the full value of debts. However, several states enacted or retained debtor-relief laws that conflicted with this promise. The Supremacy Clause was invoked to address this issue, establishing that state laws must not contradict the Constitution or federal treaties.

State courts play a significant role in interpreting and applying federal preemption. For example, in State ex rel. Jennings v. City of Seaford, a Delaware state court held that a local ordinance requiring the interment or cremation of all fetal remains from abortions or miscarriages conflicted with the state's statutory scheme for the disposal of human remains. The court ruled that the ordinance was preempted and invalid, demonstrating how state courts can invoke federal preemption to resolve conflicts between local and state laws.

Jurisdiction of federal courts

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes federal law and treaties as the supreme law of the land, taking priority over any conflicting state laws. This means that a state cannot create a law that violates federal law. If a state law conflicts with a federal statute, treaty, or directive, it is considered void and without legal foundation.

When discussing federal versus state criminal laws, it is important to note that violations of federal laws fall under the jurisdiction of federal courts, while state law violations are handled by state courts. Federal judges rely on federal laws for sentencing, which can differ significantly from sentences for similar conduct that violates state law.

In the context of criminal law, if an individual violates both state and federal laws, they can be prosecuted and convicted in both federal and state courts. Double jeopardy rules do not apply in this case, as the charges are filed separately under state and federal law.

For example, possession of controlled substances is typically prosecuted as a state crime. However, if the offence occurs on federal property, it becomes a violation of federal law and falls under the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

State court judges

For example, in the case of United States v. Peters (1809), a Pennsylvania statute that attempted to annul the judgment of a federal court was found to be without legal foundation. Similarly, in State ex rel. Jennings v. City of Seaford (2022), a local ordinance in Delaware that conflicted with the state's statutory scheme for the disposal of human remains was held to be preempted and invalid.

However, it is important to note that state court judges typically handle state law violations, while federal courts have jurisdiction over violations of federal laws. In cases where there is a violation of both state and federal laws, an individual can be prosecuted and convicted in both federal and state courts, serving their sentences consecutively.

When it comes to conflicts between state and local laws, state preemption has gained prominence alongside federal preemption. State preemption allows state governments to nullify local laws that conflict with or deviate from state law. For instance, a local anti-abortion ordinance in Delaware was struck down by a state court, demonstrating the power of state courts in resolving legal issues within their jurisdiction.

Frequently asked questions