State Laws: Conflict Or Cohesion?

The United States is a union of states, each with its own set of laws. When an individual or organization from one state interacts with another state, questions may arise about which state's laws apply and whether a state law can violate another state's law. This is a complex issue, and the answer depends on the specific circumstances and the nature of the laws in question. For example, in the context of abortion laws, there have been discussions about whether a state can deem it illegal for its residents to undergo the procedure in another state with less restrictive laws. Similarly, in the case of recreational cannabis use, an individual from a state where it is illegal may be unsure about their legal standing when visiting a state where it is permitted. These scenarios highlight the need to understand the interplay between state laws and the potential conflicts that can arise.

State laws on abortion

In the United States, state laws on abortion have been rapidly changing in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion. As a result, abortion is now protected by state law in 21 states and the District of Columbia, while it is at risk of being severely restricted or prohibited in 26 states and three territories.

The laws and policies that enhance access to abortion include public funding, the requirement that abortion be included in private insurance coverage, unrestricted access for young people, and the expansion of the types of healthcare practitioners who can provide abortion care. Some states have proactively expanded the range of clinicians who can lawfully provide abortion care by repealing physician-only laws or authorizing other qualified medical professionals, such as physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, and nurse practitioners, to perform abortions.

On the other hand, states with "Hostile" or "Illegal" abortion laws have expressed a desire to prohibit abortion entirely. These states are highly susceptible to the revival of old abortion bans or the creation of new ones, and they lack any legal protections for abortion. Many of these states have started enforcing existing abortion restrictions and bans, and some are even seeking to extend criminal liability to individuals who travel to other states to obtain legal abortions.

The conflict between state laws on abortion has raised questions about the extraterritorial reach of state criminal laws. While states generally have the power to apply their laws beyond their borders, the abortion issue has highlighted the complexities and potential conflicts that can arise when state laws sharply contradict each other. This has led to concerns about the potential for "judicial terrorism" and the need to establish clear constitutional parameters for extraterritorial prosecutions.

State sovereignty laws

The concept of sovereignty has evolved over time, and while it initially denoted absolute and unlimited power, the growth of democracy and interdependence among states has led to limitations on this power. Today, sovereignty is generally understood as supreme authority, encompassing hierarchy within a state and external autonomy. In the context of state sovereignty laws, each state has its own set of laws that its citizens and visitors must abide by. When an individual enters another state, they are legally bound to follow the laws of that particular state. This means that a person's actions in one state may be legal, but if they perform the same actions in another state, they could face legal consequences.

The concept of state sovereignty is not limited to domestic affairs but also extends to international relations. In the international arena, sovereignty is often associated with the idea of nation-state sovereignty, which is based on territoriality and the absence of external influence in domestic matters. The United Nations (UN) plays a crucial role in fostering peaceful relations between sovereign states, and its charter emphasizes the juridical equality of all states, granting them the same rights and duties under international law. The UN's focus on establishing empirical sovereignty in the post-Cold War era has been driven by the understanding that stronger internal structures promote interstate peace.

While states enjoy sovereignty and the autonomy that comes with it, they are not entirely unbound by external laws or regulations. International law imposes certain restrictions on state sovereignty, and states have accepted a body of law that limits their sovereign right to act unilaterally. These limitations are often justified by consent or autolimitation, even if explicit acceptance of these rules by the states is not always evident. Additionally, the emergence of regional and international organizations, such as NATO, the WTO, and the EU, has led to a pooling of sovereignties, demonstrating that sovereignty is not solely exercised by national governments but is shared with these organizations to maintain peace and prosperity.

In conclusion, state sovereignty laws grant each state the authority to establish and enforce its own set of laws, which individuals must abide by when within that state's borders. However, the concept of sovereignty has evolved to include limitations on power, both domestically and internationally. While states retain the right to create and enforce their laws, they must also respect the laws and sovereignty of other states, fostering a delicate balance between state autonomy and the need for international cooperation.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction

In the United States, extraterritorial jurisdiction refers to the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries. This means that state laws can, in some cases, apply to people beyond their borders. For example, a state can prosecute its citizens for out-of-state conduct, such as fraud, that has effects within the state.

The concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction has been applied in the context of transnational anti-competitive practices. For instance, in the case of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, Imperial Oil in Canada was ordered to be divested from Standard Oil. The "effects doctrine", which allows for jurisdiction over foreign offenders and conduct as long as the economic effects are experienced domestically, was introduced in United States v. Alcoa.

In the context of US state laws, the discussion around extraterritorial jurisdiction has been influenced by the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which has led to conflicts between state laws regarding abortion services. Some states seek to extend criminal liability to individuals acting in states where their conduct is legal, which has raised questions about the constitutionality of such prosecutions.

State preemption standards

Preemption is a legal doctrine that allows higher levels of government to restrict or prevent a lower-level government from self-regulating. In the context of state law, preemption is used by states to limit cities, counties, and other municipalities from legislating on various issues. The extent of a state's ability to preempt local governments depends on factors such as whether the state grants local governments the power to govern (Home Rule) or follows Dillon's Rule, which only permits local governments to legislate with express state permission.

There are three main types of preemption: outright, express, and implied. Outright conflict occurs when an ordinance directly opposes a state law. Express preemption is when a state law explicitly prohibits or limits local government action. Implied preemption is more controversial and occurs when local laws prohibit or permit acts that are respectively permitted or prohibited by state law, or when there is a clear state intent to preempt a particular field. The "field" refers to an area of extensive state regulation, reflecting an intent to preempt all local regulations in that area.

Courts use various methods to determine when a state has preempted a particular field, such as the seven-part test from Allied Vending Co. v. Bowie (1993). Local ordinances will typically preempt state law when significant interests for an issue vary from locality to locality, unless expressly forbidden by state statute.

Preemption has been increasingly used by industries as a tool to enact state laws that preempt local regulation, particularly in areas like firearm safety, where 43 states have varying degrees of comprehensive preemption of local laws. This has raised concerns, especially regarding public health, as states have begun to adopt enhanced punishments for localities and officials acting outside the confines of preemption.

Constitutional doctrines

The US Constitution does not explicitly address whether a state law can violate another state's law. However, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution guides how it is applied. The interpretation of the Constitution is dynamic and can change over time, as seen in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, where the Supreme Court's decision led to conflicts between state laws regarding abortion services.

The Commerce Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 3) is another important doctrine. It was violated by a Louisiana statute that imposed a tax on ships entering the port of New Orleans, regardless of whether any services were performed. Similarly, a Nevada tax on individuals leaving the state by rail or stagecoach was found to violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, as it restricted the right of US citizens to move freely across state lines. The Privileges and Immunities Clause (Art. IV, § 2) was also infringed by Tennessee acts that gave priority to local creditors over non-resident creditors with claims against foreign corporations doing business in the state.

State laws can also be held unconstitutional if they violate due process. For example, Kentucky's criminal and antitrust provisions were found to be void for vagueness, as they prohibited combinations that established prices deviating from the "real market value" without providing a clear definition of this term. Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees that state laws do not arbitrarily discriminate. An example of a violation is a Texas act that required two years of prior experience as a freight train conductor or brakeman to be eligible for the position of railroad train conductor.

While the constitutional doctrines provide a framework, the specific interpretation and application can vary across states. This is evident in the abortion debate, where some states seek to prohibit residents from travelling to other states with less restrictive abortion laws. The Supreme Court's decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, where it declined to decide on the enforcement of a New York mortgage law, further highlights the complexity of state law conflicts.

Frequently asked questions