Anaya Nolan
The relationship between state and federal law in the United States is a complex one, with the federal government having the ultimate power to override state laws. This is known as the 'supremacy clause', which is part of Article VI of the Constitution, and it means that federal law is considered the supreme law of the land. This has been demonstrated in several cases, including Arizona's immigration law, where the federal government enforced the supremacy clause to overturn the state's strict immigration legislation. However, in some cases, the federal government may choose not to intervene if the conflicting state law does not affect national security or international relations. For example, in Nevada, prostitution is legal in certain counties, which goes against federal law, but the federal government has not taken any action. The interplay between state and federal law can also be seen in the debate around gun rights, with some states attempting to restrict federal gun laws that they believe violate the Second Amendment.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Supremacy Clause | Federal law supersedes state laws |
| Supremacy Clause | Federal government wins in case of conflicting legislation |
| Supremacy Clause | Federal government can enforce Supremacy Clause |
| Supremacy Clause | Federal government can choose not to enforce Supremacy Clause |
| Supremacy Clause | Federal government can sue states to overturn state laws |
| Supremacy Clause | Federal government can raid businesses operating under state law |
| Doctrine of Pre-emption | Congress can include express provision for preemption in the text of a statute |
| Doctrine of Pre-emption | Implied preemption can occur when state and federal laws directly conflict |
| Doctrine of Pre-emption | Implied preemption can occur when federal law dominates a field that a state law seeks to regulate |
| Doctrine of Pre-emption | Conflict may occur between federal and state laws when they impose different requirements |
| Federalism | Congress has the power under the Spending Clause to require states to undertake certain activities as a condition of receiving federal monies |
| Federalism | Congress has limited ability to abrogate state immunity |
| Federalism | Congress cannot "commandeer" either the legislative process of a state or the services of state executive branch officials |
| State Power | States can attempt to exempt themselves from federal law |
| State Power | States can attempt to nullify national legislation |
| State Power | States can attempt to declare national actions unconstitutional and void |
What You'll Learn
Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, establishes the supremacy of federal law over state laws. This clause, also known as the doctrine of pre-emption, asserts that the federal government's laws and the Constitution take precedence over any conflicting state laws. In other words, when a state law contradicts a federal law, the federal law supersedes the state law and must be followed.
The Supremacy Clause was included in the Constitution to address the lack of a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789. The Articles of Confederation did not explicitly declare federal law as superior to state law, leading to situations where federal statutes did not bind state courts in the absence of implementing state legislation. The Supremacy Clause was introduced to rectify this issue and reinforce the priority of federal authority.
The clause states that the Constitution, the laws of the United States made under its authority, and all treaties made under the United States' authority are the "supreme Law of the Land." This means that judges in every state are bound by these federal laws and treaties, regardless of any conflicting state laws or constitutions. The Supreme Court has interpreted this 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 supersede state law, while implied preemption occurs when the intent to supersede is implicit in the structure and purpose of the federal law.
The Supremacy Clause has been applied in various contexts, including immigration, patent law, hazardous waste management, and voting rights. For example, in Arizona, the federal government sued to overturn the state's strict immigration law under the Supremacy Clause, arguing that the state law had international implications. In another case, Sperry v. Florida, the Supreme Court found that federal patent laws preempted state law regarding the licensure of attorneys. The Court has also recognized implied field preemption, as in Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, where it ruled that federal laws on hazardous waste management preempted Illinois laws on the same subject.
HOA's Power: Restricting Condos from New Airbnb Laws
You may want to see also
Marijuana legalization
The U.S. Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, establishes that federal law is the "supreme law of the land." This means that in cases of conflicting legislation between state and federal laws, federal law prevails. However, the Tenth Amendment limits what state laws can be federally preempted, and the federal government has shown some reluctance to enforce the doctrine of pre-emption in certain cases.
In the context of marijuana legalization, the federal government has not actively interfered with state laws that contradict federal drug laws. As of 2025, at least 41 states have legalized the possession, manufacture, and sale of at least some cannabis products that remain illegal at the federal level. The Department of Justice's 2013 Cole Memo formalized a policy of non-interference unless a specific federal interest is implicated. While the memo was rescinded in 2018, the non-enforcement practice has continued under subsequent administrations.
The CSA itself also acknowledges that it only preempts state laws under very limited circumstances. According to 21 U.S.C. 903, the CSA is not intended to preempt state drug laws if there is a "positive conflict" between state and federal law, meaning they cannot consistently stand together. Courts have interpreted this to mean that a state law is only preempted by the CSA if it is physically impossible to comply with both state and federal law or if the state law obstructs the CSA.
While the federal government has the authority to enforce its marijuana laws, requiring state agents to enforce these laws is considered unconstitutional commandeering of state resources. This was demonstrated in a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a federal law prohibiting states from authorizing sports gambling, citing the anticommandeering rule derived from the Tenth Amendment. This ruling further reinforces the ability of states to legalize cannabis without federal interference.
In summary, while marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, states have made significant progress in legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational purposes. The federal government has largely refrained from enforcing federal marijuana laws in states with conflicting legislation, allowing states to act as "laboratories of democracy." This dynamic reflects the complex interplay between state and federal laws in the United States and the ongoing evolution of marijuana policies across the country.
Maintenance Rights: Daughter-in-Law vs. Father-in-Law
You may want to see also
Immigration law
However, there is a degree of complexity in the interplay between federal and state immigration laws. While the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution generally gives precedence to federal laws over state laws, states do retain some autonomy in immigration-related matters. For example, state laws that tangentially affect immigration, such as employment licensing laws, are permissible. States also have some freedom in determining the benefits and resources provided to immigrants within their jurisdictions.
The enforcement of immigration laws has been a controversial issue, with debates surrounding the role of state and local law enforcement in cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution prevents the federal government from requiring states to enforce federal immigration programs. Cities like Chicago, New York, and Boston have implemented "sanctuary" policies, restricting how local law enforcement can cooperate with federal agents. These policies are constitutionally protected, and while they may face legal challenges, there is no federal law mandating state cooperation with immigration enforcement.
Despite the federal government's primary role in immigration law, states can exert influence through legislation and law enforcement practices. The interplay between federal and state immigration laws continues to evolve, with ongoing debates and legal challenges shaping the landscape of immigration policy in the United States.
Judicial Power: Federal Judges and Federal Law
You may want to see also
State nullification
The concept of state nullification is a highly controversial constitutional theory that asserts that individual states can invalidate federal laws or judicial decisions deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification was first introduced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. In these resolutions, Jefferson and Madison argued that the Constitution is a "compact" among the states, and that the states retain the authority to determine when the federal government has exceeded its powers. According to supporters of nullification, if a state believes that the federal government has exceeded its delegated powers, it may declare federal laws unconstitutional and nullify them within its jurisdiction.
The doctrine of nullification has been invoked in several instances throughout American history. One notable example is the Nullification Crisis of 1832, when South Carolina passed an Ordinance of Nullification, declaring two federal tariffs null and void within the state because they disproportionately burdened the state. Another instance occurred in 1954, when Arkansas attempted to nullify the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which held that school segregation was unconstitutional.
However, it is important to note that the theory of nullification has been repeatedly rejected by state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The courts have upheld the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that federal law is superior to state law, and that the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal judiciary, not the states. Despite the controversial nature of nullification, it remains a significant topic in American political and legal discourse.
While nullification has not been legally upheld, there are instances where the federal government has chosen not to intervene in state laws that contradict federal legislation. For example, in Nevada, certain counties have legalized prostitution, which violates federal law. However, the federal government has not enforced the doctrine of pre-emption in this case. Similarly, in the case of recreational marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington, the federal government initially stated that it would not go after recreational users due to limited resources.
Martial Law: Executive Orders Explained
You may want to see also
Sovereign immunity
The Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1795, is central to the concept of sovereign immunity in the US. It removed federal jurisdiction over lawsuits brought "against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." In other words, it clarified that a citizen of one state could not sue another state without its consent. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the Eleventh Amendment in Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798) and further strengthened state sovereign immunity in subsequent cases, such as Hans v. Louisiana.
The FTCA (Federal Tort Claims Act) of 1946 and the FSIA (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) of 1976 have also shaped sovereign immunity in the US. The FTCA led to most states enacting limited statutory waivers of sovereign immunity, allowing plaintiffs to sue the state and its entities in certain circumstances. The FSIA established the limitations on suing a foreign sovereign nation in US courts and the procedures for doing so.
While the US Constitution declares that federal law is "the supreme law of the land," sovereign immunity can still apply in cases where federal law preempts state law. For example, in Sperry v. Florida, the Supreme Court found that federal patent law preempted state licensure law, and sovereign immunity did not apply. However, in cases where there is no express preemption provision, a court may still find implied preemption if state and federal laws conflict or if federal law dominates a field that state law seeks to regulate.
FEMA's Power: Can It Declare Martial Law?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, states that federal law supersedes state laws. This means that if a state law contradicts a federal law, the federal law prevails. However, in practice, the federal government may choose not to intervene if the state law does not affect national security or international relations.
While states have attempted to exempt themselves from federal laws they deem overbearing, these efforts have not been successful. The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the idea of "nullification," which would allow states to declare national actions unconstitutional and void. In one example, the Supreme Court turned down a plea by gun rights enthusiasts in Montana to exempt the state from federal gun laws.
The Eleventh Amendment provides that "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State." This suggests that citizens cannot generally sue states under federal law. However, there are exceptions, and Congress has a limited ability to abrogate state immunity.
