Gavin Howe
In the United States, the Federal Government and State Governments share power in several ways, while local governments are granted power by the State. This has led to several instances of conflict between state and local laws, bringing up the question of whether local laws can trump state laws. For example, in 2021, the city of Seaford, Delaware, enacted an ordinance that conflicted with the state's statutory scheme for the disposal of human remains. The state attorney general challenged the local law, arguing that it conflicted with state law. This is an example of state preemption, where a state government can nullify a local law that conflicts with or deviates from state law.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Local laws can be nullified by state laws | A state government can nullify a local law that conflicts with, or deviates from, state law |
| Local laws can be upheld over state laws | Local governments can resist unconstitutional state laws and policies |
| State laws can be upheld over local laws | State laws can preempt local laws if there is a clear conflict |
| State laws can be nullified by federal laws | Federal preemption states that federal law supersedes conflicting state law |
| State laws can be upheld over federal laws | The Supreme Court has held that treaties and laws made must comply with the Constitution |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Local laws conflicting with state laws
For example, in the case of Seaford, Delaware, the city enacted an ordinance requiring that all fetal remains from abortions or miscarriages be cremated or interred. This conflicted with Delaware's state law, which required an official record of death before human remains could be cremated or interred. The state court ruled that the local ordinance could not "enact a law that conflicts directly with a law established by the senior sovereign."
Similarly, in Morgan Hill, Northern California, the city council passed an ordinance requiring the theft or loss of a gun to be reported within 48 hours. This was challenged by a gun owner and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, as it deviated from California state law, which required a five-day window for reporting missing guns.
It is important to note that each state has its own approach to local authority, and the relationship between state and local laws can vary. In some cases, states may grant local governments flexibility, as seen in California's prior case law allowing local governments to address gun control. However, when a clear conflict arises between state and local laws, the state law generally takes precedence, as established by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause and federal preemption also apply to federal laws taking precedence over state laws. This was seen in Missouri v. Holland (1920), where the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to make treaties that supersede state law, even if they abrogate states' rights.
Lease Contracts: State Law or Lease Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
State preemption
In the United States, state preemption is a legal doctrine that allows higher levels of government to restrict or prevent lower-level governments from self-regulating. While federal preemption of state laws is more commonly discussed, state preemption of local laws is also prevalent. Local governments are granted power by the state and include counties, municipalities (cities/towns), townships, villages, and various kinds of districts.
The extent of a state's ability to preempt local government varies and depends on factors such as whether the state grants local governments the power to govern (Home Rule) or follows Dillon's Rule, which only permits local governments to legislate where a state has expressly allowed. Most states have some form of home rule, which expands municipal power, but only California and Ohio protect municipalities from preemption. This protection is shrinking, as seen in Ohio's preemption of cities' ability to raise the minimum wage and charge fees for single-use plastic bags.
Some preemption laws contain punishments for enforcing preempted laws, such as withholding state funds from the municipality or exposing officials to lawsuits. In 2016, Arizona enacted SB 1487, which included these punishments, and the state supreme court upheld the provision despite a challenge from the city of Tucson. In 2017, Tallahassee city officials were sued under Florida's punitive preemption laws and were not allowed to use city funds for their defence. The Supreme Court of the United States has struck down preemption laws that conflict with civil rights concerns, such as in Romer v. Evans (1995), which invalidated a Colorado amendment preempting municipal anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people.
When Bosses Break the Law: Your Rights Explained
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Federal preemption
There are three types of preemption: express preemption, conflict preemption, and field preemption. Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly confirms Congress's intention to preempt state law. Conflict preemption occurs when a state law conflicts with a federal law, as in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, where federal law prohibited state tort law from forcing a generic drug manufacturer to add information to an FDA-approved label. Field preemption occurs when Congress intends to occupy a specific legislative field, as in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, where a provision of the Airline Deregulation Act prevented states from enacting laws related to covered air carriers.
Implied preemption, which can occur through field or conflict preemption, is more controversial and has been outlawed in some states. It happens when a local ordinance prohibits or permits an act that is contradicted by the state legislature or when there is clear legislative intent for the state law to preempt. When rules or regulations do not clearly state whether preemption should apply, the Supreme Court tries to avoid preempting state laws and considers lawmakers' intent.
While federal preemption typically involves the displacement of state law by federal law, there are times when local ordinances can preempt state law. For instance, in City of Riverside v. Island Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center Inc. (2013), courts presumed that local ordinances should be favored against state preemption when significant interests for a particular issue vary from locality to locality, unless the state statute expressly forbids the ordinance.
Martial Law: Could Obama Ever Declare It?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Local resistance to unconstitutional federal action
In the United States, powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people, and these powers are further divided between state and local governments. While the federal government and state governments share power in many ways, local governments must be granted power by the state.
One notable example of local resistance to unconstitutional federal action is the case of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in 1816. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Article III of the Constitution gives federal courts jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution or federal law, and gives the Supreme Court final authority in such cases. The Supreme Court stated that the people, by providing the Supreme Court with final authority in the Constitution, had chosen to limit the sovereignty of the states. This decision effectively gave state courts the power to interpret the Constitution and nullify federal law.
Another example is the Hartford Convention of 1814, where delegates from several New England states met to discuss their disagreements with the federal government's policies. The final report and resolutions from the convention asserted that "acts of Congress in violation of the Constitution are absolutely void" and that a state had the right "to interpose its authority" to protect against unconstitutional government action.
In recent years, there has been a growing discussion of nullification, accompanied by a boom in state legislation invoking the doctrine. From 2010 to 2016, over 1,500 proposals were introduced that invoked nullification principles to question federal statutes. This trend highlights the increasingly tense state of US intergovernmental relations.
Lawyer-Client Confidentiality: Can a Lawyer Keep Mum?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Local authority and state constitutions
Local governments generally include two tiers: counties, also known as boroughs in Alaska and parishes in Louisiana, and municipalities, or cities/towns. Municipal governments are defined as cities, towns, boroughs (except in Alaska), villages, and townships, and are usually organised around a population centre. Local governments must be granted power by the state, and this power is often shared with the federal government.
Each state has its own written constitution, and these documents are often far more elaborate than their federal counterpart. All state governments are modelled after the federal government and consist of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislature, made up of elected representatives, creates legislation that becomes law.
The relationship between local and state governments is complex and can often be a source of tension. For example, in the case of Seaford, Delaware, the city enacted an ordinance mandating that all fetal remains resulting from an abortion or miscarriage be cremated or interred, which conflicted with the state's statutory scheme for the disposal of human remains. This example highlights how local and state laws can come into conflict, and the role of the courts in interpreting and upholding the relevant laws and constitutions.
In terms of resisting unconstitutional policies, state and local governments can play a crucial role. For instance, in response to President Trump's controversial policies, some states and cities have taken a stance of constitutional resistance, refusing to implement or cooperate with the federal government in unconstitutional policies. This strategy of federalism emphasises the sovereign powers of the states and localities, and the limited power of the federal government.
Ultimately, the interplay between local authority and state constitutions is complex and context-dependent. While states have significant power in relation to local governments, the specific dynamics can vary across states and issues.
California Civilians: Purchasing Law Enforcement-Grade Gear
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, state laws will usually prevail when in conflict with local laws. This is an example of preemption, where a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority.
Yes, in Sperry v. Florida, 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 deemed this to be an unauthorized practice of law. The Supreme Court ruled that federal law preempted state law in this case.
No, federal law displaces or preempts state law when the two conflict. This is due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
