Country Vs State: Who Wins In A Legal Showdown?

The relationship between federal law and state law is a complex one, with the potential for conflict and overlap. In the US, the Supremacy Clause, part of Article VI of the Constitution, dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law in cases of conflicting legislation. This is to prevent states from bypassing or ignoring federal laws. However, the US Congress cannot pass laws on everything, and some rights are reserved for the states. This results in a hierarchy of laws, with federal laws at the top, followed by state, county, and city laws. While federal laws can overrule state laws, the Supreme Court tries to respect the intent of lawmakers and avoid preempting state laws unless absolutely necessary. This dynamic between federal and state laws can lead to interesting legal scenarios, such as the legalization of marijuana in certain states despite its illegal status under federal law.

Characteristics of Country vs State Law

Federal law vs state constitution

Federal laws are created at the national level and apply to the entire nation, including all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and US territories. The US Constitution forms the basis for federal law; it establishes government power and responsibility, as...

State laws are created and passed by state legislatures and signed into law by the governor. State courts can review and overturn these laws if they conflict with the state's constitution. While states have the right to create their own constitutions and laws, these cannot supersede federal laws. This is to ensure that local prejudices do not dictate laws, such as forbidding taxes or allowing discrimination.

The US Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to judge whether federal, state, and local governments are acting within the law and to determine if a president's actions are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court can strike down federal laws if they conflict with the US Constitution and can also overturn state laws if they violate the Constitution or federal laws. For example, the Supreme Court has struck down state laws that conflicted with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Commerce Clause.

While the federal government cannot pass laws on every matter, as some rights are reserved for the states, there are ways to encourage compliance with federal laws, such as withholding funding for non-compliance. Additionally, Congress cannot make laws on certain subjects because they are delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. In cases where state laws conflict with federal laws, federal laws take precedence. For instance, the legalisation of marijuana in certain states contradicts federal law, creating difficulties for dispensaries and leading to police seizures of related assets.

Supremacy Clause

In the United States, federal laws trump state laws. This is due to the Supremacy Clause, which is a cornerstone of the country's federal political structure. The Supremacy Clause is a constitutional provision that identifies the supremacy of federal law and assumes the underlying priority of federal authority. It is considered one of the most significant structural provisions of the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause states that the Constitution, the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or to be made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land. This means that federal laws and treaties are considered equally as "supreme law of the land," with no superior efficacy given to either. The Supremacy Clause also binds judges in every state to follow federal law, regardless of any contrary provisions in the state constitution or laws.

The Supremacy Clause was introduced as part of the New Jersey Plan during the Federal Convention of 1787 and was unanimously passed. It was included in the Constitution, which was ratified in 1788. The Clause was a response to problems with the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a similar provision declaring federal law superior to state law. As a result, during the Confederation era, federal statutes did not bind state courts in the absence of state legislation implementing them.

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as federal preemption, which means that federal law can preempt or supersede state law. This can be done expressly, through explicit language in the federal law, or implicitly, through the structure and purpose of the federal law. The Court has also recognized different subcategories of implied preemption, such as field preemption, where federal law is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state supplementation, or where the federal interest is so dominant that it precludes enforcement of state laws on the same subject.

State constitutions and federal preemption

In the United States, federal law supersedes state law, as per the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. This is known as the preemption doctrine, which refers to the idea that a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority of law when the two conflict.

The Supremacy Clause has been applied by the Supreme Court in ways that reinforce the division of federal and state powers. For example, in the early 20th century, the Court's decisions established a precursor to the doctrine of field preemption, which states that some federal legislation implicitly prevents states from adopting any laws regulating the same general subject.

Federal law can preempt state law either expressly or impliedly. Express preemption occurs when federal law contains explicit language preempting state law. Implied preemption occurs when the intent to preempt is implicit in the structure and purpose of the federal law. There are three types of implied preemption: field preemption, conflict preemption, and obstacle preemption. Field preemption occurs when federal law is so pervasive that it occupies the "field," leaving no room for state regulation. Conflict preemption occurs when compliance with both federal and state law is impossible. Obstacle preemption occurs when state law poses an obstacle to federal objectives.

While federal law generally supersedes state law, there are some complexities and exceptions. For example, local ordinances can sometimes preempt state law, particularly when significant interests for a particular issue vary from locality to locality. Additionally, states have the power to amend their constitutions, which can impact the relationship between federal and state laws. However, it is important to note that states cannot simply ignore federal laws by amending their constitutions. Ultimately, the interpretation and application of preemption can be complex, and courts play a crucial role in resolving preemption cases and determining the scope and extent of preemption.

City laws and state laws

In the United States, the federal government and smaller levels of government, including state, county, and local governments, coexist in a shared governance system. While the federal government can override some state laws through the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, this power has its limits. States are generally free to create and enforce their own laws as long as they are constitutional and do not conflict with federal laws.

The relationship between federal and state laws is further complicated when considering the interplay between state and local laws. Cities and towns within a county may have their own local laws and governments, often addressing issues such as zoning, taxation, criminal and civil courts, and business law. The legal doctrine that gives local governments expanded power over their local affairs is called "home rule." However, state preemption allows state governments to nullify local laws that conflict with or deviate from state laws. For example, in the State ex rel. Jennings v. City of Seaford case, the city of Seaford, Delaware, enacted an ordinance mandating that all fetal remains from abortions or miscarriages be cremated or interred. The state attorney general challenged this ordinance, arguing that it conflicted with the state's statutory scheme for the disposal of human remains. The court ruled in favor of the state, holding that the city's ordinance was preempted and invalid as it conflicted with state law.

Another example of the complex interplay between state and local laws is the legalization of marijuana. While some states have legalized marijuana, it remains illegal at the federal level. This discrepancy has created difficulties for dispensaries in accessing banking services and has led to cases of police seizing assets under the pretense of funding federally illegal drugs.

In conclusion, while the federal government can generally override state laws, and state governments can supersede local laws, the relationship between different levels of governance is complex and constantly evolving. Political polarization has also influenced the aggressive use of state preemption, impacting the dynamics between state and local laws.

Federal courts overruling state courts

In the United States, the federal government and each of the state governments have their own court systems. The legal system is complex, with many areas regulated by both state and federal governments. The US Constitution creates a federal system of government in which power is shared between the federal and state governments.

Federal courts can overrule state courts in three main ways: by enjoining proceedings, by issuing writs of habeas corpus to set aside convictions, and by adjudicating cases removed from state courts. Federal jurisdiction is not ousted by abstention; rather, it is postponed. The Supreme Court has sometimes encouraged or required lower federal courts to use certification procedures. Most states have adopted rules that allow federal courts to certify or refer unsettled questions of state law to state courts.

The US Congress cannot pass laws on everything. Some rights are reserved for the states. However, federal laws override state laws. If federal laws couldn't overwrite state constitutions, states would have the ability to bypass or ignore federal laws. For example, the US Supreme Court struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that protected citizens from the enforcement of laws that expanded civil rights protections for LGBT people, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Frequently asked questions