Federal Law Vs State Constitution: Who Wins?

The Supremacy Clause, introduced as part of the New Jersey Plan during the Federal Convention of 1787, establishes federal law as supreme over state law. This clause, which is considered a cornerstone of the United States' federal political structure, ensures that the Constitution and federal laws take precedence over any conflicting state laws or constitutions. While the Supremacy Clause was not initially a source of major disagreement, it later generated controversy during debates over the Constitution's ratification, with advocates of federal supremacy ultimately prevailing. The Supreme Court has relied on this clause to uphold the priority of federal law and has recognized various ways in which federal statutes can displace or preempt state law. However, it is important to note that federal statutes and treaties must still operate within the boundaries of the Constitution and not violate constitutional limits on federal power.

The Supremacy Clause

According to Alexander Hamilton, federal laws, by definition, must be supreme. If the laws do not function from that position, then they amount to nothing. James Madison defended the Supremacy Clause as vital to the functioning of the nation. He noted that state legislatures were invested with all powers not specifically defined in the Constitution, but also argued that having the federal government subservient to various state constitutions would be an inversion of the principles of government.

Federal preemption

The Supremacy Clause was introduced as part of the New Jersey Plan during the Federal Convention of 1787, and it passed unanimously. Alexander Hamilton defended the clause, writing in Federalist No. 33 that federal laws "must be supreme" by definition. If they are not, he argued, they amount to nothing. James Madison also defended the clause, stating that it was vital to the functioning of the nation.

There are three types of preemption: express preemption, conflict preemption, and field preemption. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states Congress's intention to preempt state law. Conflict preemption occurs when a federal law conflicts with a state law, and field preemption occurs when Congress occupies a "field" or area of law that displaces state law. For example, in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, federal law enacted under Congress' Commerce Clause authority prohibited state tort law from forcing a generic drug manufacturer to add information to a label approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Implied preemption is a controversial form of preemption that may be harder to prevent than express or outright preemption. It occurs when a local ordinance prohibits or permits an act that is contradicted by state legislation, or when there is clear legislative intent that the "field" is preempted by state law.

The Tenth Amendment

> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Judicial review

The Supremacy Clause is a cornerstone of the United States' federal political structure, establishing the supremacy of federal law over state law. This means that federal law takes priority over any conflicting rules of state law. The Supremacy Clause is a response to the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a similar provision, resulting in federal statutes not binding state courts without state legislation.

The Supremacy Clause is an explicit reference to "judicial review", the idea that even duly enacted statutes do not apply if they are deemed unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which allows it to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. This power is derived from the Supremacy Clause, which assumes the underlying priority of federal authority as long as it is expressed in the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution. This means that they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers and not 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.

The Supremacy Clause has been a source of controversy, with Anti-Federalists objecting to federal statutes and treaties overriding aspects of each state's constitution and bill of rights. However, despite this controversy, the Supremacy Clause's basic principle of federal supremacy is now well-settled and has been relied upon by the Supreme Court to establish a robust role for the federal government in managing the nation's affairs.

Federal funding to states

Federal laws are supreme over state laws, as outlined by the Supremacy Clause, which is considered a cornerstone of the United States' federal political structure. This clause, introduced as part of the New Jersey Plan during the Federal Convention of 1787, asserts the underlying priority of federal authority, provided that it is expressed in the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause assumes that federal and state governments must stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution and not violate constitutional limits on federal power. This means that federal law can indeed "trump" state law, but only in areas where the Constitution grants the federal government power to act.

Now, onto the topic of federal funding to states. There are varying levels of federal dependency among US states, with some states relying heavily on federal aid, while others contribute more in taxes than they receive in federal support. A WalletHub study analysed federal dependency by considering three key metrics: return on federal taxes, federal funding as a share of state revenue, and the percentage of federal jobs in each state.

The study found that Alaska, Kentucky, and West Virginia are among the most federally dependent states. Alaska receives the most federal funding per K-12 student at $4,369. This high level of federal funding in Alaska is attributed to factors such as harsh weather, a large landmass, and a small population, which contribute to the need for federal support in areas like infrastructure, disaster relief, and resource management. Additionally, Alaska has a high ratio of federal funding to taxes, receiving $2.36 for every $1 paid in taxes.

On the other hand, states like New Jersey, California, and Delaware are the least reliant on federal funding. These states tend to have higher tax rates and stronger economic positions, which reduce their need for federal assistance.

Frequently asked questions