Federal Facilities: Exempt Or Subservient To State Laws?

Federal facilities are lands and improvements to lands (buildings, structures, and equipment) owned by, constructed, or manufactured for the purpose of leasing to the federal government. Federal agencies and their facilities must comply with environmental laws and requirements in the same way as any other regulated facility. For example, federal facilities must clean up environmental contamination at their sites, and they can be listed on the National Priority List (NPL) if they are significantly contaminated. However, the question of whether federal facilities can ignore state laws is complex and depends on the specific circumstances and the relevant laws and regulations. In general, federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws, but states have the power to enforce federal laws and can strengthen federal civil rights protections.

Can federal facilities ignore state laws?

Federal law takes precedence over state law

In the United States, federal law takes precedence over state law due to the Supremacy Clause, which is found in Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made under the authority of the United States, and treaties made under the authority of the United States are the "supreme Law of the Land". This means that federal laws supersede, or take priority over, conflicting state laws.

The Supremacy Clause grants Congress the power to establish rules that American courts are bound to apply, even if they conflict with state laws. Congress can also restrict what state law can say about certain topics or put some topics off-limits to state law entirely, as long as these directives are authorized by the Constitution. For example, states do not have the authority to create their own immigration or bankruptcy systems, as this power has been granted exclusively to Congress.

When a federal statute and a state law conflict, federal law displaces, or preempts, state law. This can occur through express preemption, where Congress explicitly states that a statute preempts federal law, or through implied preemption, where state and federal laws directly conflict or federal law dominates a field that a state law seeks to regulate. In the case of Arizona v. United States in 2012, the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law that penalized undocumented immigrants working without authorization.

While federal law generally takes precedence, states do have some powers that are reserved for them under the Tenth Amendment. States can also strengthen federal civil rights protections, but they cannot weaken them. For example, federal courts have jurisdiction over federal claims unless Congress gives exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts or the principles empowering state courts counsel against concurrent jurisdiction. Additionally, federal agencies and their facilities must comply with environmental laws and requirements in the same way as any other regulated facility.

Federal facilities must comply with environmental laws

In the United States, federal laws take precedence over state laws, and federal courts have the final power to determine whether federal laws are unconstitutional. Federal agencies and their facilities must comply with environmental laws and requirements in the same way as any other regulated facility. Federal facilities include buildings, installations, structures, land, public works, equipment, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, and property owned, constructed, or manufactured for the purpose of leasing to the federal government.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has explicit authority to enforce the law and assess fines at federal facilities violating environmental statutes. The EPA's "The Yellow Book: Guide to Environmental Enforcement and Compliance at Federal Facilities" provides field-level personnel with instructions for complying with environmental requirements and understanding the enforcement and compliance processes used by the EPA at federal facilities.

Federal facilities must comply with various environmental laws and requirements, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and hazardous waste laws. The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1946, amended in 1954, provides the framework to regulate all phases of nuclear energy production and the production of radioactive materials. The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 aims to reduce pollution by increasing efficiency and conservation of natural resources. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, amended in 2005 and 2009, includes energy mandates to enhance energy security, reduce environmental effects, and encourage economic growth.

In addition, federal facilities must also comply with international environmental requirements, particularly those related to the Department of Defense (DOD) facilities. Executive Order 11752, signed on December 19, 1973, by President Richard Nixon, mandates that federal facilities outside the United States comply with the environmental pollution standards of the host country or jurisdiction.

Federal facilities include lands and buildings owned by the federal government

Federal agencies and their facilities must comply with environmental laws and requirements in the same way as any other regulated facility. Executive Order 12088 mandates that federal facilities comply with all federal, state, and local environmental requirements. The EPA's "The Yellow Book: Guide to Environmental Enforcement and Compliance at Federal Facilities" provides field-level personnel with guidance on complying with environmental requirements and understanding the enforcement and compliance processes used by the EPA at federal facilities.

The US Constitution establishes the foundational principle that federal law generally takes precedence over conflicting state laws. This is known as the Supremacy Clause. Federal civil rights laws, for example, protect people from discrimination. While states can strengthen these protections, they cannot weaken them. Federal courts have the final power to determine whether federal laws are unconstitutional and can displace or preempt state laws.

State courts have the power and duty to enforce obligations arising under federal law unless federal courts are given exclusive jurisdiction. In the case of Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court suggested that state officers have the authority to enforce federal law if they choose to do so.

Segregated facilities are no longer explicitly banned in federal contracts

In March 2025, the Trump administration removed the explicit ban on "segregated facilities" in federal contracts. This means that companies are no longer prohibited from having segregated facilities, such as waiting rooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains. The change was made through a memo issued by the U.S. General Services Administration, which stated that civil agencies should no longer include the "Prohibition of Segregated Facilities" clause when issuing new contracts.

This move has been criticized by civil rights advocates, who see it as part of a trend by the Trump administration to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. They argue that while segregation is still illegal, the change sends a message that turns back the clock on racial segregation. The "Prohibition of Segregated Facilities" clause had been in place since the 1960s, aiming to end discriminatory practices in hiring and employment.

While federal and state laws still outlaw discrimination and segregation, legal experts note that the change to contracts across the federal government is significant. The General Services Administration's memo explained that the change was prompted by President Trump's executive order on diversity, equity, and inclusion, which repealed an earlier executive order on federal contractors and nondiscrimination signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965.

It is important to note that federal law takes precedence over state law in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal law is controlling over state law, and federal courts have the final power to determine the constitutionality of laws. While states generally have the power to enforce federal laws, they do not have the authority to nullify them.

State sovereignty and refusal to enforce federal regulations

The United States Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty, where the federal government and the states each have their own sphere of authority. While the federal government has powers over matters that impact the entire nation, the states retain powers over issues that are more local in nature. This division of authority is meant to protect the rights and liberties of Americans by preventing the concentration of power in a single entity.

State sovereignty is a fundamental aspect of the US system of government, and it allows states to have their own unique laws and regulations that reflect the specific needs and values of their citizens. However, this can sometimes lead to conflicts between state and federal laws, raising the question of which set of laws takes precedence.

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that federal law displaces, or preempts, state law when there is a conflict between the two. This means that federal law is generally considered to be the supreme law of the land, and state laws cannot override or contradict it. However, there have been instances where states have refused to enforce federal regulations, citing state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states that are not specifically delegated to the federal government.

One notable example is the case of Printz v. United States (1997), where the Supreme Court held that a federal law requiring state officials to conduct background checks as part of a federal firearms program violated the constitutional principles of state sovereignty. The Court found that Congress could not commandeer state executives to administer a federal regulatory program, as this would violate the separation of powers. Similarly, in the case of Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn. (1981), the Court upheld the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 because it did not compel states to enforce steep-slope standards or participate in the federal regulatory program. These cases illustrate the delicate balance between federal and state authority and the role of the courts in interpreting and upholding state sovereignty.

Frequently asked questions