Federal Law Vs State Law: Who Wins?

The relationship between federal and state law in the United States is governed by the Supremacy Clause, which states that the supreme Law of the Land includes federal statutes enacted by Congress. This clause gives federal law the power to supersede conflicting state laws, including state constitutions. This principle, known as preemption, applies in areas where Congress has authority and is most relevant when Congress and the states share authority. Preemption can be express, where it is explicitly stated in the federal statute, or implied, where it arises from the law's structure and purpose. The Supreme Court has the final say in matters of federal law and can overrule state court decisions.

Treaties and federal statutes

The enforceability of treaties has been limited by Supreme Court decisions, such as in Medellín v. Texas (2008), which held that a treaty is not binding domestic law unless implemented by an act of Congress or explicitly "self-executing." This ruling was seen as a departure from the plain language of the Supremacy Clause. In United States v. Lee Yen Tai (1902), the Court acknowledged the possibility of a treaty superseding a statute, but emphasized that congressional intent to abrogate any law or treaty must be clear and distinct.

Federal law can preempt state law in areas where Congress has authority, and this preemption can be express or implied. Express preemption occurs when Congress includes a specific provision stating its intent to preempt state law, as in Arizona v. United States (2012), where federal immigration law expressly preempted Arizona's state law. Implied preemption can arise when state and federal laws conflict or when federal laws dominate a field that a state law seeks to regulate. For example, in Sperry v. Florida (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that federal patent law preempted Florida's state licensure law for patent agents, despite Congress not expressly stating its intent.

The Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law and can overrule state court decisions. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court affirmed that Congress cannot pass laws contrary to the Constitution and that the Judicial system interprets the Constitution. The Court has also clarified that the Supremacy Clause and Article III grant it the power to review state court decisions involving federal law and the Constitution.

State and federal law conflicts

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution (Article Six, Clause Two) establishes that federal law supersedes state law in the event of a conflict. This clause has been interpreted by courts to mean that federal law, the Constitution, and regulations take precedence over state law, including state constitutions.

The Supremacy Clause was first applied in the 1796 case, Ware v. Hylton, where the US Supreme Court ruled that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. The basic principle that valid federal statutes supersede conflicting state laws is not controversial. However, there is room for debate about what constitutes a conflict, and the precise trigger for requiring courts to disregard state law in favour of federal law.

Federal law can supersede state law in several ways. Firstly, express preemption occurs when federal preemption of state law is explicitly stated in the federal statute's language. Secondly, implied preemption can occur when state and federal laws directly conflict, or when federal law dominates a field that a state law also seeks to regulate. This can lead to situations where a party is unable to comply with both federal and state laws, or where compliance with one law puts a party in violation of the other.

Courts play a crucial role in interpreting Congressional intent when determining whether federal law supersedes state law. They start with the assumption that state powers should not be superseded by federal law unless that is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. When evaluating evidence of Congressional intent, courts are generally advised to err on the side of state rather than federal authority.

Congressional intent

The Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution (Article Six, Clause Two) establishes that federal law and the Constitution are the "supreme law of the land". This means that federal law supersedes state law in the event of a conflict.

In cases where Congress has not explicitly indicated its intent, courts will use tests and rules of statutory construction to determine Congressional intent. Courts will err on the side of state rather than federal authority when evaluating evidence of Congressional intent. Implied preemption can occur when federal and state laws directly conflict, or when federal law dominates a field that a state law seeks to regulate. For example, in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law penalizing undocumented immigrants for working without authorization. The Court found that the Arizona law was an "obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose".

In some cases, Congressional inaction concerning a law's subject matter may imply an authoritative federal determination that the area is best left unregulated, which can have as much preemptive force as a decision to regulate. For example, in Arkansas Electric Coop. Corp. v. Arkansas Public Serv. Commission, the court inferred preemption from Congressional inaction, finding that a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme intentionally left a portion of the regulated field without controls.

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause, a clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, declares the constitution, laws, and treaties of the federal government to be the supreme law of the land. This means that federal law is superior to state law and that judges in every state must abide by it, regardless of any conflicting state laws. The Supremacy Clause was included in the Constitution to address issues with the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a provision declaring federal law as supreme and resulted in federal statutes not binding state courts without state legislation.

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted in various ways throughout history, with some arguing that it was intended to create a presumption in favour of self-execution of treaties and prevent states from countering the federal government's ability to comply with treaties. Alexander Hamilton viewed the clause as redundant, believing it did not change the nature of any laws but instead legitimised the authority of the federal government. Others have argued that the Supremacy Clause was not meant to apply to federal judge-made common law, as common law was considered a distinct body of law in the eighteenth century.

The Supreme Court has relied on the Supremacy Clause in several cases to establish a robust role for the federal government and reinforce the division of federal and state powers. For example, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court held that Congress cannot pass laws contrary to the Constitution and that the Judicial system interprets the Constitution. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821), the Court ruled that the Supremacy Clause gives it the power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and federal laws, giving it the final say in matters of federal law.

The Supreme Court has also applied the Supremacy Clause in cases involving conflicts between federal and state laws, such as in Arizona v. United States (2012), where it held that federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law penalising undocumented immigrants working without authorisation. In Sperry v. Florida (1963), the Court ruled that federal patent law preempted a Florida state law regarding the licensure of attorneys. These cases demonstrate how the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal law takes precedence over state law in cases of conflict or when federal law dominates a field that a state law seeks to regulate.

Preemption

The Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution (Article Six, Clause Two) states that "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land." This clause establishes the supremacy of federal law over state law, including state constitutions. It means that federal law can supersede or preempt state law in certain situations.

The determination of preemption ultimately depends on Congressional intent. Courts will consider whether Congress intended for federal law to supersede state law and will err on the side of state authority if the intent is unclear. In cases of implied preemption, courts will interpret the law's structure and purpose to ascertain Congress's intent. While the Supremacy Clause establishes the potential for preemption, the interpretation and application of this clause can vary, leading to debates and disagreements among legal scholars.

Frequently asked questions