Enforcing Laws Across State Lines: Whose Rules Apply?

The United States Constitution grants each state the power to create and enforce its own laws, which can differ significantly from those of other states. This federal system allows states to address local issues and interests, but it can also create legal complexities when conflicts arise between state and federal laws, or between different states' laws. In such cases, the doctrine of preemption comes into play, with federal law taking precedence over state law, and state law taking precedence over local law. This has been a particularly salient issue in recent years, with political polarization leading to increased state preemption litigation over issues such as abortion, gun control, and public health ordinances.

Federal law vs. state law

The United States Constitution creates a federal system of government, where power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Both the federal and state governments have their own court systems. The federal government's powers are listed in the U.S. Constitution at Article I, Section 8, and include immigration, bankruptcy, the postal service, intellectual property, and the military.

Federal laws apply to everyone in the United States. These laws apply in every state and cover areas such as federal anti-discrimination and civil rights laws that protect against racial, age, gender, and disability discrimination.

State and local laws apply to people who live or work in a particular state, commonwealth, territory, county, city, municipality, town, township, or village. Each state has its own system of laws and courts that handle various issues. Some counties, cities, and towns have their own system of laws and courts that handle specific matters.

There are some areas of law governed by both state and federal law, which usually happens when Congress spends money to create programs for the general welfare. When federal funds are offered to a state, some element of federal law is typically involved. For example, in FERC v. Mississippi, the Court observed that it had never explicitly sanctioned a federal command to the states to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations. However, the Court upheld the statute because it did not view it as a direct command, only requiring consideration of federal standards.

In some cases, the Supreme Court has held that federal law can violate constitutional principles of state sovereignty. For instance, in Printz v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law requiring state officials to receive firearms dealers' reports and conduct background checks as part of a federal program violated state sovereignty.

Conflicts between federal and state laws are resolved by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that laws enacted in furtherance of the Constitution are the "supreme law of the land," and federal laws take precedence over state constitutions and laws.

State sovereignty

The concept of state sovereignty is one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law. It is frequently misused and has no single universally agreed-upon meaning. Generally, sovereignty is the ultimate authority or power in the decision-making process of a state and in the maintenance of order. It is the most essential attribute of the state, taking the form of its complete self-sufficiency within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction.

The Westphalian System of state sovereignty, named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, recognises the right of princes to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms. Before 1900, sovereign states enjoyed absolute immunity from the judicial process, derived from the concepts of sovereignty and the Westphalian equality of states. The development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law have further altered the meaning of sovereignty. The United Nations Charter, the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organisations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based on their existence as persons under international law.

In the United States, the Constitution does not endow the national legislature with supreme power but imposes important restrictions upon it. The Supreme Court has the right to declare laws unconstitutional through judicial review, which appears to vest sovereign power in the Constitution itself. The Tenth Amendment further complicates the matter, stating that powers not delegated by the Constitution to the United States or expressly prohibited by the Constitution to the states or the people are retained by the states or the people. This has led to claims by advocates of states' rights that states are sovereign, with the concept of dual sovereignty of both the union and the component units finding a theoretical basis.

In the context of controversies between a state and citizens of another state, the Supreme Court has ruled that "controversies between a State and citizens of another State" are confined to civil suits. Additionally, a state may not sue in its name unless it is the real party in interest with real interests. In Printz v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that a federal law requiring state officials to conduct background checks as part of a federal program violated constitutional principles of state sovereignty. Similarly, in FERC v. Mississippi, the Court observed that it had never explicitly sanctioned a federal command to the states to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations, upholding a statute that did not constitute such a command.

Supreme Court rulings

The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the US Constitution establishes that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are the "supreme law of the land", and that state courts are bound to give effect to federal law and disregard state law when there is a conflict. This includes the interpretations of the Constitution, laws, and treaties by the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over certain cases, such as suits between two or more states, and cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. It also has appellate jurisdiction over almost any other case involving a point of constitutional and/or federal law.

The Supreme Court has ruled on several cases involving the enforcement of federal law by state courts. In McKnett v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. (1934), the Court held that the Federal Constitution prohibits state courts of general jurisdiction from refusing to hear federal claims solely because the suit is brought under federal law. In Haywood v. Drown (2009), the Court considered a New York state statute that divested New York state courts of jurisdiction over suits seeking money damages from corrections officers, and held that the statute violated the Supremacy Clause. In Howlett v. Rose (1990), the Court summarised cases where states had validly declined to hear federal claims, and held that a Connecticut court must hear a case arising under federal law. In Testa v. Katt, the Rhode Island Supreme Court declined to enforce a federal statute with a punitive damages provision, and the US Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that the law was penal in nature and the state need not enforce the penal laws of a foreign government.

The Supreme Court has also ruled on cases involving the enforcement of federal law by state courts in specific contexts, such as water rights and immigration. In Missouri v. Illinois & Chicago District, the Court sustained jurisdiction to entertain an injunction suit to restrain the discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River. In Southern R. Co. v. Mayfield (1950), the Court held that a state's application of the forum non conveniens doctrine to bar adjudication of a federal claim brought by non-residents was constitutional as long as the policy was enforced impartially. In Johnson v. Fankell (1997), the Court held that a state rule limiting interlocutory jurisdiction did not discriminate against federal claims.

In some cases, the Supreme Court's rulings have not been enforced by the executive branch. For example, in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Court held that Georgia laws seizing Cherokee lands were invalid as violations of federal treaties, but President Jackson did not take steps to enforce this decision, and the lands were seized. In more recent times, the Trump administration defied a federal court order to restore DACA, an Obama-era program that allowed immigrants to live and work in the United States legally, effectively rejecting the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter. While the Supreme Court can hold public officials, including the President, in contempt of court and order federal law enforcement officers to enforce its orders, there is no judicial power to compel obedience if the executive branch defies such orders in an organised way.

State constitutions

In terms of enforcing laws from another state, there are a few scenarios to consider. Firstly, in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, it was established that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not include suits between a state and its own citizens. This means that a state cannot enforce its penal laws on its citizens through the Supreme Court.

Additionally, in the case of Massachusetts v. Mellon, the Court held that it is not the duty or power of a state to enforce its citizens' rights concerning their relations with the federal government. Instead, the United States represents the citizens in such matters.

However, in the case of South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Court decided on the merits of the state's claim that Congress had exceeded its powers under the Fifteenth Amendment, indicating that a state may have some standing to assert its interest in executing its own laws.

Furthermore, in the case of Carondelet Canal Co. v. Louisiana, the Louisiana Act of 1906, which repealed a prior act and sequestered certain property, was found to impair an obligation of contract. This demonstrates that a state law can be challenged and held unconstitutional if it conflicts with contractual obligations.

In conclusion, while state constitutions provide a framework for the rights and responsibilities of state residents and the organisation of state governments, the enforcement of laws from one state to another is a complex issue that depends on various factors, including the specific circumstances of the case, the jurisdiction of the courts, and the potential conflict with federal laws or the US Constitution.

State law enforcement

The United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI) establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land. This means that federal law takes precedence over state laws, and state courts are required to follow the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties. This is known as the Doctrine of Preemption, which states that if a federal law conflicts with or preempts a state law, the state law is invalidated, and a federal court may require a state to refrain from enforcing that law.

State laws are superior to local laws and can occupy a particular field, preempting local municipalities from enacting conflicting legislation. For example, states that have legalized recreational and medicinal marijuana have occupied that field, and local laws cannot regulate outside of it. Similarly, if a state enacts gun control laws, it can preempt local laws from governing gun control within that state.

However, local governments are generally free to impose stricter regulations than state laws, and state preemption does not always apply. For instance, in Kirk v. City of Morgan Hill, the California Court of Appeal held that a local gun control ordinance was not preempted by state law, as it exceeded a state-mandated minimum standard.

In terms of state sovereignty, the Tenth Amendment and the enumerated Powers Clause establish a system of dual sovereignty, which is violated when Congress commands state executives to administer a state regulatory program or perform federal law enforcement functions. For example, in Printz v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law requiring state officials to conduct background checks and receive firearms dealers' reports violated constitutional principles of state sovereignty.

Furthermore, the Court has refrained from deciding whether purely ministerial reporting requirements imposed by Congress on state and local governments are permissible. An example is the federal mandate for state and local law enforcement agencies to report missing children cases to the Department of Congress.

Frequently asked questions