Federal Law Vs State Law: Who Wins?

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution establishes that federal law supersedes state law in the event of a conflict between the two. This principle, also known as preemption, has been upheld by the Supreme Court in numerous cases, including Arizona v. United States, where the Court ruled that federal immigration law took precedence over an Arizona state law. While the Supremacy Clause gives federal law the upper hand, it does not mean that states must base their laws on the same policy judgments as federal statutes. States retain autonomy in areas where Congress has chosen not to legislate, such as choosing to implement sales taxes instead of income taxes.

Treaties and federal statutes

The Supremacy Clause was first applied by the US Supreme Court in 1796, in the case of Ware v. Hylton, where it ruled that a treaty superseded a conflicting state law. The Court has also held treaties to preempt state statutes on subjects such as land inheritance, land ownership, taxation, business incorporation, and tort law.

In cases where a treaty provision appears to conflict with a federal statute, courts have avoided potential conflicts by construing the treaty and the statute as operating simultaneously, so that neither supersedes the other. When conflicts are unavoidable, courts have typically held that the most recent expression of congressional intent—a later-in-time statute—supersedes treaties.

The enforceability of treaties has been limited by Supreme Court decisions, which have held that even if a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless implemented by an act of Congress or is explicitly "self-executing". However, there is a dispute over whether a treaty has ever superseded an inconsistent statute.

In conclusion, while treaties and federal statutes are considered equally supreme under the Supremacy Clause, the enforceability of treaties is subject to certain limitations, and conflicts between treaties and federal statutes are resolved by courts through interpretation and consideration of congressional intent.

Preemption and Congressional intent

The U.S. Constitution declares that federal law is "the supreme law of the land". This means that when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law will supersede the other law or laws. This is known as "preemption".

Determining whether federal law preempts state law requires an extensive analysis. Congress can include specific language in a statute that preempts state law, but even in the absence of such language, preemption could be implied by other factors. The U.S. Supreme Court has established requirements for preemption of state law.

Congressional intent may be to allow states to pass laws that establish greater safety than the minimum safety achieved by a federal regulation intended to provide a floor. Alternatively, the purpose of a federal law could be to set a uniform national standard. This was the case in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., where the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 required auto manufacturers to equip a certain number of their 1987 vehicles with passive restraints. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Act pre-empted state common-law tort claims saying that the auto manufacturer, although in compliance with the Act, "should nonetheless have equipped a 1987 automobile with airbags".

In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law preempted a state law penalizing undocumented immigrants who worked without authorization. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 contained an express preemption clause, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324(h)(2). The court found that Arizona’s law was “an obstacle to the regulatory system chosen by Congress”.

In Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963), the Supreme Court examined a conflict between federal patent laws and a state law governing the licensure of attorneys. The U.S. Patent Office had licensed a person as a patent agent, but the State of Florida had found this to be an unauthorized practice of law. The Supreme Court ruled that federal law preempted state law with regard to the person’s ability to act as a patent agent in Florida. While Congress did not expressly state that it intended federal patent law to preempt state licensure law, the court held that preemption was “necessary and proper to accomplish” the goals of the patent laws.

Federal patent laws

In the United States, federal law can supersede state law in certain instances. The Supremacy Clause dictates that federal statutes, international treaties, and the Constitution are considered the "supreme law of the land". This means that federal law is generally considered superior to state law, and in the event of a conflict between the two, federal law will prevail.

Patent law in the US has a long history, with the Constitution itself recognising the importance of granting monopolies for new inventions. The Fifth Patent Act of 1952 codified US patent law into Title 35 of the US Code, which includes previous case law on non-obviousness. The non-obviousness requirement means that an invention must be significantly different from prior art to be eligible for a patent. This is assessed by the USPTO during the patent application process.

The US Supreme Court has also played a significant role in shaping federal patent law. In Sperry v. Florida (1963), the Court ruled that federal patent law preempted state law regarding the licensure of patent agents. The Court held that preemption was "necessary and proper" to achieve the goals of patent law, even though Congress had not expressly stated its intention to preempt state law. This case demonstrated that federal patent law can supersede state law, particularly when state and federal laws conflict or when federal law dominates a field that state law seeks to regulate.

Hazardous waste regulations

In the United States, federal law can supersede state law in certain situations. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal statutes are the "supreme law of the land", and the Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law. This principle is known as federal preemption, which applies when there is a conflict between federal and state laws, or when federal laws dominate a field that a state law also seeks to regulate.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its comprehensive Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) legislation regulate all hazardous materials, from their generation to their disposal (or "cradle to grave"). The RCRA regulations are contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 239 through 282. Title 40, also known as "Protection of the Environment", includes all regulations governing EPA's programs.

The CFR is the official legal print publication containing the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by federal government departments and agencies. The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) is an online version of the CFR that is continuously updated, but it is not an official legal edition.

The EPA encourages states to assume primary responsibility for implementing hazardous waste programs through state adoption, authorization, and implementation of the regulations. The regulations governing hazardous waste identification, classification, generation, management, and disposal are found in Title 40 CFR parts 260 through 273.

For example, Part 260 covers the Hazardous Waste Management System in general, while Part 261 provides for the Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste. Part 262 establishes Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste, and Part 263 sets out Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste.

In addition to federal laws, some states have their own regulatory requirements, which must provide at least the same level of protection as federal regulations. For instance, California and Colorado consider aerosol cans to be hazardous, even though they are not listed as such in federal regulations. States may also require annual or biennial reporting of hazardous waste activities, with reports submitted to the relevant EPA regional office.

State constitutions

In the United States, each state has its own written constitution. These constitutions are typically modelled after the federal Constitution, but they are more detailed and address a wide array of issues deemed important enough to be included in the constitution rather than in an ordinary statute. State constitutions outline the structure of the state government, including the establishment of a bill of rights, an executive branch headed by a governor, a state legislature, and state courts. They also provide a general governmental framework for each branch.

Constitutions of states that were independent countries before admission, and those used by rebelling states during the American Civil War, are not counted. The District of Columbia, for example, has a charter similar to those of major cities, rather than a constitution. The commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands do not have organic acts but operate under local constitutions.

The interplay between state constitutional law and federal law is a complex area of legal study. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law and treaties are regarded as the "supreme law of the land", with the power to supersede state law. In the 1796 case of Ware v. Hylton, the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause for the first time, ruling that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. However, the Supreme Court has also held that treaties and laws made pursuant to them must comply with the Constitution.

Federal law can preempt state law in several ways. Express preemption occurs when Congress includes a specific provision for preemption in a statute. Implied preemption can occur when state and federal laws directly conflict or when federal laws dominate a field that a state law seeks to regulate. In such cases, compliance with one law may put a party in violation of the other. The Supreme Court has the final authority to review state court decisions involving issues arising under federal law and can overrule decisions by state courts.

Frequently asked questions