Federal Intervention: Can States Be Overruled?

The relationship between federal and state governments is a cornerstone of the United States' political structure. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes federal laws and treaties made under its authority as the supreme Law of the Land, taking priority over conflicting state laws. This means that federal authority takes precedence, but only when expressed in the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has limited Congress's power to regulate state governments, known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. This results in a delicate balance of state power versus federal preemption, with Congress unable to compel states to enact specific laws.

Federal courts overturning state court decisions

The US legal system is a complex one, with many areas regulated by both state and federal governments. The same goes for the courts. Article III of the US Constitution gives jurisdiction in certain types of cases only to federal courts. Federal courts are for resolving disputes between individuals and the government, or between governments of different states, not disputes between different branches of the same state government.

A state court decision can be challenged in federal court if a federal basis for the challenge can be given. For example, in Bush v. Gore, Bush argued that the Florida Supreme Court's order of a recount violated the Equal Protection clause of the federal constitution, and so the order was stayed.

A complainant will ordinarily be required, as a matter of comity, to exhaust all available state legislative and administrative remedies before seeking relief in federal court. However, when a litigant is suing for the protection of federally guaranteed civil rights, they need not exhaust any kind of state remedy.

The US Supreme Court has limited the authority of Congress to directly regulate the operations of state governments. This is called the anti-commandeering doctrine. It is articulated in US Supreme Court cases like New York v. United States, which held that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which imposed upon states the obligation to provide for the disposal of waste generated within their borders, unconstitutionally commandeered states to enact legislation that the federal government directed it to enact.

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause is a significant structural provision of the US Constitution, which asserts the supremacy of federal law over state law. It establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under the authority of the United States are the "supreme Law of the Land." This means that federal law takes precedence over any state laws or constitutions, and judges in every state are bound to follow it.

The Supremacy Clause was introduced as part of the New Jersey Plan during the Federal Convention of 1787 and was ratified in 1788. It was a response to the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a similar provision, leading to federal statutes not binding state courts without state legislation implementing them. The Supremacy Clause aimed to address this issue by explicitly declaring the priority of federal authority within the boundaries of the Constitution.

One of the key principles derived from the Supremacy Clause is federal preemption, which can be either express or implied. Express preemption occurs when federal law contains explicit language stating that it preempts state law. On the other hand, implied preemption happens when the intent to preempt state law is implicit in the structure and purpose of the federal law. Field preemption, a type of implied preemption, occurs when federal law is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state supplementation or when the federal interest is dominant, precluding the enforcement of state laws on the same subject.

The Supremacy Clause has played a crucial role in shaping the federal political structure of the United States and has been invoked by the Supreme Court to establish a robust role for the federal government in managing the nation's affairs. It reinforces the division of powers between the federal and state governments, ensuring that federal authority prevails within the scope of the Constitution.

Anti-commandeering doctrine

The anti-commandeering doctrine is a judicially created federalism protection that says that the federal government cannot require states or state officials to adopt or enforce federal law. The doctrine is based on the 10th Amendment and related federalism principles, articulated in US Supreme Court cases like New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997).

The anti-commandeering doctrine holds that Congress cannot command a state legislature to refrain from enacting a law. This is to protect liberty by ensuring a "healthy balance of power" between the states and the federal government, promote political accountability, and prevent Congress from shifting the costs of regulation to the states. For example, in New York v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 unconstitutionally imposed upon states the obligation to provide for the disposal of waste generated within their borders.

The anti-commandeering doctrine has been criticised for having weak support in precedent and being unworkable. For instance, in the case of Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the anti-commandeering doctrine only applies to “affirmative” congressional commands when Congress prohibits certain state action. The Court viewed the challenged provision as a direct command to the states in violation of the anti-commandeering rule. However, despite these criticisms, the Supreme Court has shown no indication of abandoning this judicially created federalism protection.

In conclusion, the anti-commandeering doctrine is a judicially created principle that limits the power of the federal government over state laws and protects state autonomy. While it has been criticised, the doctrine continues to be upheld by the Supreme Court, demonstrating its importance in maintaining a balance of power between the federal and state governments in the United States.

Federal preemption

The US federal government has limited authority to directly regulate the operations of state governments. This is called the anti-commandeering doctrine. However, federal law can supersede or preempt state law, making it invalid. 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 when the two conflict.

There are three types of preemption: express, implied, and conflict. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly confirms Congress's intention to preempt state law. For example, in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, a provision of the Airline Deregulation Act stated that no "State or political subdivision thereof...shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any [covered] air carrier." Express preemption often uses language that seems directed at the states, but it is important not to be confused by the phrasing of a preemption provision.

Implied preemption occurs in two ways: field preemption or conflict preemption. This is a controversial doctrine because it may be significantly harder to prevent than express or outright preemption. Some states have outlawed implied preemption. Conflict preemption occurs when a federal law enacted under Congress's Commerce Clause authority prohibits something that state law allows, or vice versa. For example, in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, federal law prohibited generic drug manufacturers from changing the composition or labeling of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which conflicted with state tort law.

The Supreme Court tries to avoid preempting state laws and will favour local ordinances over state preemption unless the state statute expressly forbids the ordinance.

State power vs federal power

The United States Constitution, through the Supremacy Clause, establishes federal laws and treaties made under its authority as the "supreme Law of the Land", taking priority over conflicting state laws. This means that federal laws and treaties are supreme over state laws and state constitutions, and judges in every state are bound to follow them.

However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution and cannot violate constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for example, states that the federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. This highlights the importance of the United States Supreme Court in exercising the power of judicial review to invalidate statutes that violate these parameters.

While the Supremacy Clause establishes the priority of federal authority, it is limited to the authority expressed in the Constitution. This means that both the federal and state governments must stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause is considered a cornerstone of the United States' federal political structure, reflecting the belief that a larger political society's laws must be supreme over its constituent parts.

Despite the Supremacy Clause, the United States Supreme Court has limited the authority of Congress to directly regulate the operations of state governments through the anti-commandeering doctrine. This doctrine holds that Congress cannot directly modify state law or compel states to enact certain laws. For example, in New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 unconstitutionally directed states to enact legislation. While Congress cannot directly rewrite state laws, it can pass laws that inspire states to modify their own laws, such as by putting stronger conditions on federal funding.

Frequently asked questions