State Vs Federal Law: Who Wins?

In the United States, the relationship between federal and state law is complex. While state laws only apply to citizens within a particular state, federal law applies to all US citizens. This has led to situations where state and federal laws contradict each other, such as in the case of marijuana legalization in some states, despite federal law classifying it as a Schedule I drug. The area of law that addresses these conflicts is generally referred to as the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes priority over state law. However, the federal government has sometimes taken a position of non-interference, allowing states to enforce their own laws without requiring them to keep marijuana illegal. This dynamic between federal and state laws raises important questions about the role of government and the balance of power in the US legal system.

Can a state pass a law that contradicts federal law?

Marijuana legalization

The conflict between federal and state laws regarding marijuana has led to several challenges and uncertainties. One significant issue is the impact on commerce and capital, with banks generally reluctant to do business with marijuana companies due to concerns about violating federal anti-money laundering laws. The federal restriction on interstate commerce has also caused market imbalances, as marijuana cannot legally cross state lines, even between states where it is legal. This restriction has resulted in excess supply in some states and a lack of access in others.

The legal ambiguity has made it challenging for business lawyers to advise clients in the cannabis industry, particularly regarding banking rules and regulations. The transportation sector is another area fraught with complications, as drivers with federal certifications who cross state lines may face conflicting state laws and the federal prohibition on cannabis. The lack of clear guidance leaves individuals and businesses vulnerable to federal prosecution, despite complying with state regulations.

To address these complexities, Congress has attempted to introduce legislation such as the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2021 (SAFE Banking Act). However, the bill has yet to be taken up in the Senate. Additionally, amendments like the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment have played a crucial role in protecting states with legalized medical marijuana by prohibiting the Department of Justice from using federal funds to interfere with state implementations. Nevertheless, this amendment must be renewed annually, creating ongoing uncertainty in the industry.

Immigration law

The United States federal government regulates immigration, but states also have their own laws that can control immigration within their borders. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 are the main rules the federal government follows today. The U.S. Congress controls all immigration-related regulations, but the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution generally means that federal laws take precedence over state laws. However, there are exceptions to this. While states must remain within specific parameters, they have relative degrees of freedom in their laws. For example, California is a "sanctuary state" that provides more generous benefits to immigrants, whereas Texas has been notoriously unfavourable to immigrants and has successfully restricted those benefits.

Some states have passed laws punishing their localities for passing sanctuary policies and have undermined the impact of protective policies. For example, Arizona passed a strict immigration law, S.B. 1070, in 2010, which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) stated "crossed a constitutional line". A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including a requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the state illegally. The federal government sued Arizona to overturn the law under the Supremacy Clause, which contains the doctrine of pre-emption, meaning that federal law wins in cases of contradiction.

In practice, states have a large degree of power in immigration enforcement. Since the creation of the 'Secure Communities' program, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is automatically notified of every person taken into custody across the country, giving local law enforcement the power to drive immigration enforcement. Over the last decade, 70-75% of ICE arrests in the interior of the U.S. have been hand-offs from another law enforcement agency.

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause, which is part of Article VI of the US Constitution, is a constitutional provision that identifies the supremacy of federal law over state law. It establishes the priority of federal authority and asserts that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land". This means that when a state law contradicts a federal law, the federal law takes precedence and must be followed. The Supremacy Clause was included in the Constitution to address the lack of a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789.

The Supremacy Clause has been described as a cornerstone of the United States' federal political structure. It ensures that federal statutes and treaties are considered the supreme law of the land, with judges in every state bound to follow them, regardless of any conflicting state laws or constitutions. This principle, known as federal preemption, has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where the Court ruled that state actions cannot impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government.

The Supremacy Clause has been applied in various contexts, including immigration law, drug regulation, and voting rights. For example, in the case of Arizona's strict immigration law, the federal Justice Department sued to overturn it under the Supremacy Clause, demonstrating that federal law prevails over state law in cases of contradiction. Similarly, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an act of Congress, preempts state constitutions, and Food and Drug Administration regulations may override state court judgments in cases involving prescription drugs.

The Supremacy Clause also applies to treaties, which are considered equally as binding as federal statutes. The US Supreme Court has consistently held that Congress can abrogate or modify a treaty, even if it violates the treaty under international law. This means that international agreements made under the Treaty Clause are incorporated into US federal law and are subject to judicial interpretation and review, just like any federal statute.

Federal law superiority

The United States Constitution establishes a federalist system of government, dividing power between the federal government and the states. When state laws and federal laws conflict, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives priority to federal law. This is based on the idea that the Constitution and federal laws are the "supreme Law of the Land".

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, establishes that federal law is superior to state law. This means that when there is a conflict between a federal law and a state law, the federal law prevails and must be followed. The Supremacy Clause contains the doctrine of pre-emption, which gives the federal government the power to override state laws. This principle was established in the landmark case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where the Supreme Court ruled that state actions cannot impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government.

The Supremacy Clause applies to all US citizens, while state laws only apply to citizens within a particular state. This means that a person can comply with a state law but still be in violation of federal law. For example, in 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington state voted to legalize marijuana, despite it being illegal under federal law. Similarly, California voters decided to create an exception to their state marijuana possession law for medical use, even though the federal government still considered possession illegal.

The Supremacy Clause also applies to treaties made by the United States. However, the Supreme Court has held that treaties and laws made pursuant to them must comply with the Constitution. In some cases, Congress may preempt all state regulation, as in the 1976 Medical Device Regulation Act. In other cases, Congress may set federal minimum standards while allowing states to impose more stringent standards, as with labels on prescription drugs.

The Supremacy Clause ensures that the federal government has the final say when there is a conflict between state and federal laws, maintaining the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

State regulatory activity

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal laws are "the supreme Law of the Land", and that "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby". This means that judges in each state must follow all legal directives supplied by federal statutes. In cases where a state law would require disregarding a federal statute, the Supremacy Clause gives priority to the federal law.

The Supremacy Clause has been invoked in several landmark cases, including McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where the Supreme Court ruled that state actions cannot impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government. In another case, Chy Lung v. Freeman, a person arriving in California was detained by the Commissioner of Immigration under a state statute. The Supreme Court found that the state law was preempted by federal law.

In the context of state regulatory activity, the federal government has taken the position that state regulatory activity does not violate the Supremacy Clause. This is because states do not prevent federal authorities from enforcing their own laws, and state workers are not directly involved in activities like cultivation or sales but rather administer licenses for private companies.

An example of this is the legalization of marijuana in some states, despite federal law prohibiting its use. While the federal government has not changed its laws, states have taken a more active role in implementing rules for cultivation, licensing, and taxation. The Department of Justice advised federal prosecutors to not prioritize marijuana enforcement unless states failed to provide "robust" regulation. This has resulted in a stalemate where the federal government does not support cannabis regulations but also does not push back through enforcement.

Frequently asked questions