State Law Vs Federal Law: Who Wins?

The relationship between state and federal law in the United States is a complex one. While the U.S. Constitution declares that federal law is the supreme law of the land, the reality is that federal and state laws sometimes conflict. This is known as preemption, and it occurs when federal and state laws impose conflicting requirements, or when federal law dominates a field that state law also seeks to regulate. In such cases, federal law supersedes state law, but only if the Federal government has jurisdiction. This was seen in the case of Arizona v. United States, where the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law. However, the reverse is also true: if the Constitution grants the relevant power to the state, then state law wins out. This complexity has led to a rise in the so-called nullification movement, which seeks to exempt states from federal laws they deem overbearing or unconstitutional.

Nullification laws

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution declares that federal law is "the supreme law of the land". As a result, when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law will supersede the other law or laws. This is known as preemption. In practice, determining whether federal law preempts state law requires an extensive analysis. While Congress can include specific language in a statute that preempts state law, preemption could also be implied by other factors.

> It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States…to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.

However, as soon as this law was signed, the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, Jr., wrote a letter to the governor of Kansas, denouncing S.B. 102 as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made under its authority, and treaties made under the authority of the United States are considered the "supreme Law of the Land". This means that federal law takes precedence over state laws in the event of a conflict, a concept known as "preemption".

The Supremacy Clause was included in the Constitution to address issues with the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a provision declaring federal law as superior to state law. This led to situations during the Confederation era where federal statutes did not bind state courts unless there was state legislation implementing them. The Supremacy Clause was introduced as part of the New Jersey Plan during the Federal Convention of 1787, and it passed unanimously.

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to reinforce a sharp division between federal and state powers, known as dual federalism. The Court has recognised several types of preemption, including express preemption, where federal law explicitly states its intent to supersede state law, and implied preemption, where the intent to supersede is inferred from the structure and purpose of the federal law.

The Supremacy Clause also applies to treaties, which are considered equally as binding as federal statutes and supersede state laws. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can abrogate a treaty through legislative action, even if it violates the treaty under international law. This interpretation of the Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to make treaties that supersede state laws, even if they infringe on states' rights.

While the Supremacy Clause establishes the priority of federal authority, it is important to note that this authority is limited by the boundaries of the Constitution. Both the federal and state governments must operate within the constraints set by the Constitution.

Preemption

The U.S. Constitution establishes federal law as "the supreme law of the land". This means that when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law will supersede the other law or laws. This is known as "preemption".

However, in practice, determining whether federal law preempts state law is not always straightforward and requires extensive analysis. While Congress can include explicit language in a statute that preempts state law, preemption may also be implied by other factors. The U.S. Supreme Court has established requirements for preemption of state law, and an Executive Order issued by President Clinton in the 1990s addresses preemption by federal regulations.

There have been several notable cases where state laws were preempted by federal law. In Sperry v. Florida, the Supreme Court ruled that federal patent laws preempted a Florida state law regarding the licensure of attorneys as patent agents. Similarly, in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law penalizing undocumented immigrants for working without authorization. In this case, the Court found that the state law was "an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose".

While states cannot exempt themselves from federal law, they can attempt to nullify or interpose against it. Nullification declares national actions unconstitutional and void, while interposition describes a state standing up against federal power. These theories have a historical precedent, including the endorsement of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the "Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions". However, they have also led to crises, such as the national crisis over tariffs during the Andrew Jackson administration and the Civil War over the attempt to end slavery.

State power vs federal power

The relationship between state and federal power in the United States has been a source of contention and debate since the country's founding. While the U.S. Constitution declares that federal law is "the supreme law of the land," this has not stopped states from occasionally attempting to exempt themselves from federal laws they deem to be overreaching or unconstitutional. This concept, known as "nullification" or "interposition," has a long history in the United States, dating back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions endorsed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

Nullification efforts have occurred throughout US history, with states attempting to exempt themselves from federal laws on issues such as gun control, healthcare, and civil rights. For example, in recent years, several states, including Kansas and Montana, have passed laws attempting to restrict the enforcement of federal gun laws within their borders, arguing that these laws violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms. However, these efforts have been largely unsuccessful, with the Supreme Court consistently ruling that federal law supersedes state law in cases of conflict.

The Supreme Court has established requirements for preemption of state law, and it has ruled on numerous cases where state and federal laws have conflicted. For example, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Court held that federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law penalizing undocumented immigrants for working without authorization. Similarly, in Sperry v. Florida (1963), the Court ruled that federal patent law preempted a Florida state law governing the licensure of attorneys.

While states do have certain powers reserved to them, such as the power to lay and collect taxes, they cannot override federal laws in areas where the Constitution grants the federal government authority. This includes matters that impact interstate commerce or conflict with federal treaties. Ultimately, the federal government has the final say in most cases of conflict between state and federal law, but the complex interplay between state and federal power continues to shape the legal and political landscape of the United States.

Federal gun laws

In the United States, federal law is declared to be "the supreme law of the land". This means that when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law will supersede the other law or laws. This is known as "preemption".

However, determining whether federal law preempts state law is not always straightforward and requires extensive analysis. For example, Congress can include specific language in a statute that preempts state law, but even without such language, preemption could be implied by other factors.

The Supreme Court has established requirements for preemption of state law and has cautioned that, when evaluating evidence of Congressional intent, courts should err on the side of state rather than federal authority. This is known as "express preemption".

"Implied preemption" can occur when state and federal laws directly conflict with each other, or when federal laws dominate a field that a state law seeks to regulate. For example, in the case of Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law preempted a state law penalizing undocumented immigrants working without authorization.

In recent years, there has been a growing movement, particularly among adherents of the Tea Party, to resist the concentration of governing power in Washington and to oppose new federal laws, such as the federal healthcare law. This movement has also intensified the demand for strong personal rights to have and carry guns, which has brought back the idea of "nullification". Nullification is the theory that states can declare national actions unconstitutional and thus void.

Some states, such as Kansas, have attempted to adopt nullification laws aimed directly at federal gun laws that they believe violate the Second Amendment right to have and carry guns. However, these laws have been denounced as unconstitutional by the federal government, and the Supreme Court has rejected pleas by gun rights enthusiasts to allow states to forbid the enforcement of federal gun laws.

Frequently asked questions