State Law Vs Federal Law: Who Wins?

The United States is a federal system, which means that while federal law is the highest authority, state laws also exist. This has led to several instances of conflict between state and federal laws, with states sometimes refusing to enforce federal regulations. While the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that states can nullify federal law, there are several examples of states rejecting federal caselaw, such as the Arizona Supreme Court's decision to reject a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. This phenomenon has led to a complex legal landscape, with states having their own laws on issues such as same-sex marriage and marijuana use, which are in conflict with federal laws.

Marijuana laws

As of 2023, 14 states have passed legislation permitting the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes only. Additionally, 18 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. This means that a majority of states allow the use of cannabis to some extent, despite it being illegal under federal law.

The conflict between federal and state marijuana laws has led to several issues and complications. For example, businesses that sell marijuana legally in their state face challenges due to federal banking regulations. Banks are generally unwilling to do business with these companies as they fear violating federal anti-money laundering laws. This has resulted in marijuana businesses being unable to open bank accounts or accept credit card payments.

Furthermore, individuals who use marijuana legally under state law may still be at risk of federal prosecution. While federal prosecutions of individuals possessing marijuana are rare, the federal government has the authority to enforce its own marijuana laws. This creates uncertainty and potential legal consequences for people using marijuana in states where it is legal.

The Tenth Amendment's "anti-commandeering rule" prohibits Congress from requiring state agents to enforce federal marijuana laws. This means that states have the autonomy to chart their own path and enact their own marijuana regulations without interfering with federal laws. However, it is important to note that federal law takes precedence over state law, and in cases of conflict, federal law will prevail.

Same-sex marriage

The history of same-sex marriage in the United States has been a long and complex journey, with efforts to legalise it beginning in the early 1970s. The first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the issue of civil marriage rights and benefits to public attention. Despite these early attempts, it wasn't until the 1990s that significant progress was made, with civil unions for same-sex couples being established in many states. However, these unions created a "separate but equal" standard, as couples were denied access to federal rights and responsibilities.

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law, defining marriage as between a man and a woman and allowing states to deny marriage equality. This act prohibited the federal government from recognising same-sex marriages that were valid in certain states. Despite this, some states, like Massachusetts in 2004, took the lead in legalising same-sex marriage through court rulings.

The turning point came in 2015, when the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry and that states must allow it. This decision granted marriage equality nationwide, and same-sex couples in all 50 states gained the right to marry. However, it's important to note that this decision did not legalise same-sex marriage in Native American tribal nations, as Congress has legal authority over their reservations.

In 2022, the federal Respect for Marriage Act was passed, providing statutory protections for same-sex marriages. This law requires all states to recognise valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, but it does not mandate states to issue same-sex marriage licenses. While the legal landscape has improved, challenges and acts of violence and hate against the LGBTQ+ community persist, highlighting the ongoing need for acceptance and inclusion.

Firearms legislation

In the United States, federal law is the highest authority, but states also have their own laws. While the Supremacy Clause affirms that federal law prevails over state law, there is no single explanation for state law rejecting federal law. This phenomenon is not always carried out by the same institutional actor.

In the context of firearms legislation, states have introduced legislation that asserts their sovereignty over firearms within their borders. By 2010, resolutions had been introduced in the legislatures of 27 states that would nullify federal authority over firearms. This legislation passed in several states, including Montana, Tennessee, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Some states have taken this a step further; for example, in 2010, a bill was introduced in South Carolina to nullify all gun registration laws within the state.

At the federal level, the Gun Control Act was passed after the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This legislation imposes stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, establishes new categories of firearms offenses, and prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and certain other prohibited persons. It also establishes federal jurisdiction over "destructive devices," including bombs, mines, grenades, and similar devices.

Additionally, the National Firearms Act (NFA) imposes a duty on persons transferring NFA firearms and possessors of unregistered firearms to register them with the Secretary of the Treasury. However, the Supreme Court held in 1968 that the registration requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. As a result, Title II of the NFA was amended to remove the registration requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms and prohibit the use of any information from an NFA application as evidence in a criminal proceeding.

At the state level, Massachusetts has recently passed significant gun safety legislation. This legislation addresses issues such as untraceable "ghost guns" and 3D-printed guns, enhances the state's "Red Flag Law," and seeks to protect safety in public spaces by criminalizing the possession of firearms in certain areas, such as government buildings, courts, and election/polling places. The legislation also strengthens the state's "Extreme Risk Protective Order" (ERPO) statute and expands the definition of "assault weapons" to include not only known assault weapons but also other weapons with similar features.

Environmental rules

In the United States, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets the national standards for environmental protection. States can have their own environmental rules, which may be stricter than federal rules, but they cannot go against federal regulations. States that meet federal standards are given the right to issue their own regulations. However, the federal government has ultimate enforcement authority in all cases.

The EPA encourages state and local governments to initiate environmental action through state notification and assistance. The SDWA, RCRA, CAA, and CWA are examples of laws that establish federal standards as the minimum criteria for state compliance. As long as states meet these standards, the EPA will not intervene. However, if a state fails to take corrective measures by a declared deadline, the EPA can assume all enforcement authority.

In some cases, the EPA can take immediate control of state enforcement authority without any notice. For example, under the RCRA, the EPA can obtain state enforcement authority for solid waste control and force the state to create its own entity to monitor and control solid waste pollution.

The relationship between state and federal parties can shape environmental laws and policies. States can directly influence federal policy by choosing to enforce or not enforce environmental regulations. This is particularly true in areas where the federal government cannot directly intervene, and state and local governments have a strong hand in shaping the practical effect of federal regulation. This concept, known as "laboratories of democracy," suggests that allowing states to experiment with different forms of regulation can help identify the most effective approaches.

Federal agents' powers

Federal law enforcement agencies, informally known as the "Feds", are empowered by the federal government of the United States to maintain law and public order related to matters affecting the country as a whole. The federal government and the states share power in the United States, and federal laws are the highest authority. However, states also have their own laws, and there have been instances where state and federal laws have disagreed.

Federal officers' most common primary functions are criminal investigation or enforcement, corrections, and police response and patrol. Federal law enforcement officers are authorized to make arrests and/or carry firearms in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. They are employed by a wide range of federal law enforcement agencies, including the United States Department of Justice and Homeland Security, which have the most sworn armed officers.

Some federal investigative powers have become broader in practice, especially since the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for example, was created in 2002 in response to the September 11 attacks to protect the country against terrorism.

Federal agents, also known as special agents, are investigators or detectives of federal, military, tribal, or state agencies who primarily serve in criminal investigatory positions. They are empowered to conduct both major and minor criminal investigations and hold arrest authority. Special agents must possess skills and knowledge in criminal and civil law, enforcement operations, physical techniques, and technical equipment. They must also be physically fit.

There have been instances where states have introduced legislation to restrict the powers of federal agents. For example, in 2010, legislators in three states introduced bills that would make it a crime for any federal agent to make an arrest, search, or seizure within the state without the advance written permission of the county sheriff. However, these bills did not advance beyond the introductory stage.

Frequently asked questions