State Vs Federal Law: Who Wins?

The United States Constitution, which comprises the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments, protects individuals and legal persons from various government actions. While federal law is said to supersede or override state law in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction, there are instances where state laws on cannabis and immigration deviate from federal laws. This raises the question of whether state laws can supercede federal laws, and if so, under what conditions.

Treaties and federal statutes

The Supremacy Clause has been applied by the Supreme Court in several cases, including Ware v. Hylton (1796), where it ruled that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. In Asakura v. City of Seattle (1924), the Supreme Court invalidated a city ordinance prohibiting non-citizens from obtaining pawnbroker licenses, citing a 1911 treaty with Japan that allowed citizens of each nation to trade in the other country under the same terms as native citizens. The Court held that the treaty's terms could not be nullified by municipal ordinances or state laws.

While treaties are generally considered as binding as domestic federal law, there are differing opinions on the enforceability of certain international agreements and the scope of a treaty's legal obligations. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can abrogate a treaty by legislative action, even if it violates the treaty under international law. In Missouri v. Holland (1920), the Court affirmed that the Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to make treaties that supersede state law, even if they abrogate states' rights under the Tenth Amendment.

In cases where a treaty provision conflicts with a state or federal statute, courts have attempted to avoid intrusion on executive and legislative foreign policy domains. They have often construed the treaty and statute as operating simultaneously, allowing both to remain in force. When conflicts are unavoidable, courts typically favour the statute, particularly if it is a later-in-time enactment, as it represents the most recent expression of congressional intent.

Preemption clauses

The Supremacy Clause is a cornerstone of the United States' federal political structure. It assumes the underlying priority of federal authority and states that federal law displaces or preempts state law when the two are in conflict.

Preemption can arise in any area over which Congress has authority, but it is most often an issue in areas in which Congress and the states share authority. The Supreme Court of the United States has identified two main types of preemption: express and implied. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute or regulation contains explicit language stating that the law preempts state law. Several federal laws contain express preemption clauses, including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Implied preemption is more controversial and difficult to prevent. It occurs when one can infer that Congress intended to preempt state law when the federal law was created, even if not expressly stated. There are two types of implied preemption: field preemption and conflict preemption. Field preemption occurs when federal laws and regulations have so thoroughly covered a particular field that there is no room for state laws. For example, in Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, the Court ruled that federal laws governing hazardous waste preempted Illinois laws covering the same field. Conflict preemption, on the other hand, occurs when a conflict arises between state and federal law, making it impossible for someone to comply with both. An example of conflict preemption is when a local ordinance prohibits an act permitted by state legislation.

In cases where the purpose of Congress is unclear, the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, determines whether a federal law preempts a state law. The Supreme Court tries to follow lawmakers' intent and prefers interpretations that avoid preempting state laws.

Conflict preemption

The Supremacy Clause is considered a cornerstone of the US federal political structure, emphasising the priority of federal authority. This priority, however, is contingent on the federal law being within the parameters of the Constitution. In other words, federal laws must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers and must not violate constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights.

The preemption doctrine, which embodies the Supremacy Clause, asserts that a higher authority of law will supersede a lower authority of law when they conflict. This was demonstrated in the case of Sperry v. Florida, where the Supreme Court ruled that a federal patent law preempted a conflicting state law regarding the licensure of attorneys. Similarly, in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law penalising undocumented immigrants working without authorisation.

Congressional intent

The Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution (Article Six, Clause Two) establishes the supremacy of federal law over state law. This clause asserts that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under the authority of the United States take precedence over any conflicting state laws. The Supremacy Clause is based on the underlying priority of federal authority granted by the Constitution.

Implied preemption arises when the federal statute does not contain an express preemption clause but still supersedes conflicting state laws. There are two types of implied preemption: field preemption and conflict preemption. Field preemption occurs when Congress indicates its intent to occupy an entire field of regulation, as seen in cases like Arizona v. United States, where federal immigration law preempted state law. Conflict preemption occurs when federal and state laws directly conflict, making it impossible to comply with both.

Courts utilize tests and rules of statutory construction to determine Congressional intent when it is not explicitly stated. They start with the assumption that federal law does not supersede state law unless there is a clear and manifest purpose of Congress to do so. The Supreme Court has also cautioned that, when evaluating evidence of Congressional intent, courts should err on the side of state authority rather than federal authority.

In summary, Congressional intent plays a pivotal role in determining whether federal law supersedes state law. Express preemption arises from explicit statements in federal statutes, while implied preemption involves field preemption and conflict preemption. Courts carefully interpret Congressional intent to ensure a balanced approach to federalism, respecting the boundaries of both federal and state authorities.

Judicial review

The Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution (Article Six, Clause Two) establishes the supremacy of federal law over state law. This clause, as construed by the courts, makes federal law supersede conflicting state law. The Supremacy Clause is considered a cornerstone of the United States' federal political structure.

The Supremacy Clause provides that:

> "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . ."

Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law supersedes state laws, and courts are often asked to determine whether federal law has preempted state action in a particular area. The Supreme Court described the preemption doctrine in *Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008)*: "state laws that conflict with federal law are without effect."

The Supremacy Clause also addresses the legal status of treaties and the Constitution itself. Treaties and federal statutes are regarded equally as the "supreme law of the land" and are subject to judicial interpretation and review. The U.S. Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause for the first time in the 1796 case, *Ware v. Hylton*, ruling that a treaty superseded conflicting state law.

The Supremacy Clause contains the Constitution's most explicit references to "judicial review"—the idea that even duly enacted statutes do not supply rules of decision for courts if they are unconstitutional. The power of judicial review allows the United States Supreme Court to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.

In determining whether preemption exists, courts start with the assumption that federal law does not supersede the historic police powers of the states unless that is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. The focus is to ascertain Congress' intent. Preemption may be either expressed or implied. It is expressed when it is explicitly stated in the federal statute's language and implied when it is contained in the law's structure and purpose. Implied preemption falls into two categories: (1) field preemption, where Congress indicates an intent to occupy an entire field of regulation; and conflict preemption, where federal and state laws directly conflict with each other, or when federal laws dominate a field that a state law seeks to regulate.

Frequently asked questions