State Laws Vs Federal Government: Enforceability?

The dynamic between state and federal law in the United States is complex, with federal law enforced through a combination of public and private efforts. Federal statutes typically vest enforcement authority in a federal agency, but some also allow private parties to sue to enforce federal law. States can also enforce federal law, but this dynamic has been understudied in federalism literature. State enforcement of federal law is unique in that it authorises state actors to enforce the laws of a different sovereign, and this enforcement authority can serve as a means for states to exert influence and push their own interpretations of federal law. Notably, states are not compelled to enforce federal laws or regulations and can choose not to participate in federal regulatory programs, as seen in cases like the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and FERC v. Mississippi. However, states may voluntarily choose to participate in the enforcement of federal laws, and federal laws may require consideration of federal standards by states. This interplay between state and federal law enforcement raises questions about sovereignty and the balance of power between state and federal governments.

State enforcement of federal law

Federal law is enforced through a combination of public and private efforts. While federal civil statutes typically vest enforcement authority in a federal agency, they may also create private rights of action that allow private parties to sue to enforce federal law.

Many federal statutes authorize civil enforcement by both a federal agency and the states, typically through their attorneys general. State attorneys general differ from federal agencies as agents of enforcement, and they also differ from state agencies as agents of federal-state interaction. Attorneys general in most states are independent from the state legislature and governor and may represent different constituencies.

In New York v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that a federal law requiring states to accept ownership of radioactive waste or regulate its disposal according to Congress' instructions was outside Congress' enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment. However, the Court has also upheld the constitutionality of federal laws that do not "commandeer" states into enforcing federal regulations, such as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

State sovereignty and refusal to enforce federal regulations

The United States is a concurrent sovereignty with regard to the several states, and the laws of the United States are binding on the citizens and courts of the states. However, the Supreme Court has upheld state courts' refusal to hear federal claims when state law provides a valid excuse.

In Mondou v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., a Connecticut court declined to hear a case arising under federal law, citing that it was "at liberty to decline cognizance of actions to enforce rights arising under [the federal] act, because... the policy manifested by it is not in accord with the policy of the state." The Supreme Court rejected this proposition, holding that the state court must hear the case. The Court emphasized that the case did not involve an attempt by Congress to regulate the jurisdiction of state courts or control their procedures, but only a question of when state courts must hear federal claims that fall within their ordinary jurisdiction.

In McKnett v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co., the Supreme Court held that the Federal Constitution prohibits state courts of general jurisdiction from refusing to hear a case solely because it is brought under federal law. This principle was reiterated in Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion, which stated that only a neutral jurisdictional rule will be deemed a 'valid excuse' for departing from the default assumption that state courts will hear federal claims.

In Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., the Supreme Court upheld the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 because it did not "commandeer" states into regulating mining. The Court found that states were not compelled to enforce steep-slope standards, expand state funds, or participate in the federal regulatory program, and if they chose not to, the regulatory burden would be borne by the federal government.

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. The Court found that the law's requirement for state officials to conduct background searches during the interim period before a national computer system was established was an unconstitutional command to implement legislation enacted by Congress.

In New York v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that a federal law requiring states to accept ownership of radioactive waste or regulate its disposal according to Congress' instructions was outside Congress' enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.

These cases illustrate that while state enforcement of federal law is a unique form of state power, there are limits to the extent to which states can be compelled to enforce federal regulations.

Federal statutes authorising civil enforcement by federal agencies and states

Federal laws are enforced through a combination of public and private efforts. Most federal civil statutes vest enforcement authority in a federal agency, with some also creating private rights of action that allow private parties to sue to enforce federal law. There are two distinct types of public enforcement: by federal agencies and by the states, typically through their attorneys general.

Federal law enforcement in the United States involves a wide range of federal agencies (informally known as the "Feds") that maintain law and public order related to matters affecting the country as a whole. The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are the two largest federal departments in terms of law enforcement personnel, with around 30% and 49% of the total respectively. The Department of Justice includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), among others. The Department of Homeland Security includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

Federal civil rights statutes are a key example of federal statutes authorising civil enforcement by federal agencies and states. These statutes include the Crime Control Act of 1994, which makes it unlawful for any governmental authority or agent to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Attorney General may obtain equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate this pattern or practice. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorises the Department of Justice to file suit challenging a pattern or practice of misconduct by law enforcement officers or officials responsible for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles.

Other federal civil rights statutes include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin by employers, labor organisations, employment agencies, state and local governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, and the federal government. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also includes Title IV, enforced by the Educational Opportunities Section, which prohibits public and private schools, local education agencies, and state education agencies from engaging in discriminatory practices.

Federal statutes also provide funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate, prosecute, and prevent hate crimes. For example, the federal government may condition states' receipt of federal money or participation in the enforcement of federal laws, as Justice O'Connor noted in her concurring opinion on the Brady Act.

The role of state attorneys general in enforcing federal law

State attorneys general play a crucial role in enforcing federal law, often acting as agents of federal-state interaction. As the top legal officers in their state or territory, they are independent from the state legislature and governor and may represent different constituencies. This independence empowers them to advance state-centred policies and interpret federal laws through the lens of state interests.

The role of an attorney general typically includes serving as a counsellor to state government agencies and legislatures and representing the public interest. They act as public advocates in areas such as child support enforcement, consumer protection, antitrust, and utility regulation.

In the context of enforcing federal law, state attorneys general have enforcement authority, which serves as a means for states to exert influence. This authority enables states to adjust the intensity of enforcement and interpret federal law in a way that aligns with their interests. State enforcement of federal law is unique as it authorises state actors to enforce the laws of a different sovereign.

While federal civil statutes typically vest enforcement authority in a federal agency, many also authorise civil enforcement by states, usually through their attorneys general. This decentralised enforcement by states acts on behalf of interests that may significantly diverge from those of federal enforcers.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on the dynamic between state and federal law enforcement. In New York v. U.S., the Court held that a federal law requiring states to regulate the disposal of radioactive waste was outside Congress' powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment. However, the Court has also upheld the constitutionality of certain federal incentives for states to enforce laws, such as in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, where states were not compelled to participate but could choose to do so voluntarily.

The impact of state enforcement on federal-state dialogue

State enforcement of federal law is a unique model of enforcement and a unique form of state power. It is a potent means of state influence, allowing states to adjust the intensity of enforcement and interpret federal law in their own way. State enforcement of federal law breaks the traditional link between government and law enforcement by authorising state actors to enforce the laws of a different sovereign. This means that state enforcement authority can thrive even in areas where state law is preempted or state regulators have chosen not to act.

State enforcement of federal law also empowers a different breed of state representatives. State attorneys general, who are independent from the state legislature and governor in most states, may represent different constituencies. This opens up new outlets for state-centred policy, empowering actors whose interests and incentives distinguish them from the state institutions that dominate other channels of federal-state dialogue.

Furthermore, state enforcement of federal law can impact the relationship between state and federal governments. When states enforce federal laws, they are effectively acting on behalf of the federal government, which can lead to a more cooperative and collaborative dynamic between the two levels of government. However, it can also lead to tensions and conflicts if states feel that the federal government is encroaching on their sovereignty or if there are disagreements over the interpretation and enforcement of laws.

Ultimately, state enforcement of federal law adds a layer of complexity to federal-state relations and can lead to both cooperation and conflict. It empowers states to have a stronger voice in interpreting and enforcing federal laws, which can have implications for policy implementation, intergovernmental relations, and the overall federalist system in the US.

Frequently asked questions