State Law Vs Federal Law: Who Wins?

The relationship between state and federal law in the US is a complex one, with states retaining the power to make laws, but federal law taking precedence if there is a conflict between the two. While states can choose not to enforce a federal law, they cannot nullify or repeal it. This has led to situations where certain activities are legal at the state level but prohibited by federal law, such as the widespread legal use of marijuana. In practice, the federal government can threaten to withhold funds to pressure states into complying with federal law, but it does not have the resources to enforce its laws in every state.

Marijuana legalisation

In the United States, the federal government has established that the possession and distribution of marijuana are federal crimes under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). However, the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes has gained widespread support across many states. As of 2022, 37 states, the District of Columbia, and four US territories have permitted the use of medical marijuana, while 13 states and one territory have decriminalized cannabis use. Additionally, 18 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have enacted laws enabling the recreational use of marijuana.

Despite the federal government's stance on marijuana, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution limits the extent to which state laws can be federally preempted. The federal government can enforce its marijuana laws, but requiring state agents to do so is deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's 2018 ruling that overturned the federal law PASPA, which aimed to prohibit states from authorizing sports gambling, set a precedent that reinforces states' rights to legalize cannabis. This ruling demonstrated that federal laws cannot commandeer state resources for enforcement, upholding state sovereignty.

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) 2013 Cole Memo formalized a policy of non-interference in states' marijuana legalization efforts unless specific federal interests are involved. While the Cole Memo was rescinded in 2018, the non-enforcement practice has continued under subsequent administrations. This non-interference policy has allowed states to chart their paths toward legalization without facing legal challenges from the federal government.

The complex interplay between federal prohibition and expanding state legalization has created challenges for businesses operating in the cannabis industry or adjacent to it. Business lawyers advising clients in this space face difficulties due to the conflicting legal landscape. For instance, the transportation sector encounters issues with drivers holding federal certifications crossing state lines, as they are subject to a mix of conflicting state laws and federal cannabis prohibition. Similarly, the banking sector must navigate the impact of conflicting laws on rules and regulations, making it challenging for financial institutions to offer services to state-licensed marijuana-related businesses.

Gun laws

In the United States, federal law enforcement sets the foundational framework for firearm regulation. These laws are established by Congress and enforced by federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Federal laws set the minimum standards for gun regulation, including mandatory background checks for all firearm purchases from licensed dealers and prohibiting specific categories of people, like convicted felons and individuals with restraining orders, from purchasing or possessing firearms.

State laws can either align with or exceed these federal standards, resulting in significant variations across different states. For example, some states require permits for concealed carry, while others allow "constitutional carry" without a permit. Similarly, some states have mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases, while others do not. States also vary in the penalties they impose for gun law violations, with some imposing significant fines, imprisonment, or other legal consequences such as probation or community service.

While federal law sets the baseline, states have the authority to implement their own gun regulations, which can result in two sets of laws that gun owners must navigate. This can be challenging, especially for those who travel frequently or move to a new state, as they must comply with both state and federal laws while protecting their Second Amendment rights.

It is important to understand the differences between federal and state gun laws to better protect oneself from potential abuse and ensure responsible gun ownership. For example, local police can arrest someone for violating state gun laws and hand the case over to the state prosecutor. However, if a federal law is being violated, they must notify the ATF or the U.S. Attorney's office, as only federal law enforcement can arrest someone for violating federal gun laws.

State sovereignty

The concept of state sovereignty in the United States refers to the inherent authority of individual states to govern themselves, independent of the federal government. This principle is rooted in the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the national government to the states or the people. While the U.S. Constitution and relevant case law define the lines of authority between states and the federal government, states retain certain rights and powers under the concept of federalism.

One example of state sovereignty is the legalisation of marijuana in several states, despite it remaining illegal under federal law. Similarly, some states have passed laws legalising hard drugs, and others have created gun and illegal immigrant 'sanctuary' laws, contrary to federal regulations. In practice, the federal government selectively enforces its laws in these states, either by threatening to withhold federal funds or by directly arresting and prosecuting individuals.

The Supreme Court has played a significant role in shaping state sovereignty. In the case of Seminole, the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment limited Congress's authority to waive state sovereign immunity under Article I. Additionally, the Court has barred the federal government from "commandeering" states to enforce specific laws, such as federal gun regulations and waste disposal rules.

While states possess inherent authority, there are constitutional limitations. For instance, states have limited authority over foreign imports and exports, foreign affairs, and varying their territory without congressional permission. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has restricted states from burdening interstate commerce. The Spending Clause also empowers Congress to require states to undertake certain activities as a condition of receiving federal funds, provided the conditions are related to the underlying grant and do not involve coercion.

Federal funding

In the United States, federal laws override state laws, and federal funding is often used as a tool to incentivise states to adopt national laws. While the federal government cannot directly modify or enforce state laws, it can withhold or threaten to withhold funding from states until they comply with federal legislation. This is known as "economic dragooning", where states have "no real option but to acquiesce" to the federal government's demands.

An example of this is when the Department of Transportation and Congress withheld highway funds from Louisiana until it changed its drinking age to 21, in line with the rest of the country. Similarly, the federal government threatened to withhold highway funding from Wisconsin until it raised its drinking age. In another instance, President Trump's January 2017 executive order aimed to render "sanctuary jurisdictions"—state or local governments with laws limiting their involvement in federal immigration enforcement activities—ineligible for federal grants. This raised questions about the federal government's authority to impose conditions on federal funds and prompted several jurisdictions to file lawsuits challenging the executive order's constitutionality.

The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged the limitations on Congress's authority to directly regulate the operations of state governments, known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. This was articulated in cases like New York v. United States (1992), where the Supreme Court held that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 unconstitutionally directed states to enact legislation as mandated by the federal government.

It is important to note that while the federal government can incentivise states to modify their laws through funding conditions, it cannot compel states to enact specific laws. This distinction between indirect influence and direct enforcement is crucial in understanding the dynamic between federal and state laws in the United States.

Interstate commerce

In the United States, the federal government and individual state governments sometimes pass laws that conflict with each other. In general, federal law supersedes state law, meaning that when a conflict exists, the federal law is followed. However, there are some instances where state laws can take precedence over federal laws.

The several states also have some authority to regulate aspects of interstate commerce. For example, under the provisions of the states' police powers, interstate shipments may be banned, and state laws regulating highway traffic will be upheld unless there is conflicting federal legislation. A state may also, in certain instances, tax goods in interstate commerce, providing that no congressional legislation prohibits such action.

In practice, the federal government can't force states to use their resources to enforce federal laws. For example, the federal government does not have sufficient law enforcement resources to enforce federal laws on marijuana possession in states where it has been legalised. In these cases, the federal government may threaten to withhold federal funds for state programmes unless states fall in line with federal laws.

Frequently asked questions