The State Vs Federal Law: Who Wins?

The relationship between federal and state law in the United States is a complex one. While the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution establishes that federal law supersedes state law, there are many nuances to this. For instance, federal patent laws may override state laws governing the licensure of attorneys, and federal immigration law may preempt a state law penalizing undocumented immigrants working without authorization. However, the Supremacy Clause does not mean that each state must base its laws on federal statutes. For example, while Congress has established federal income taxes, states are not required to structure their tax systems in the same way. The Supreme Court has also ruled that treaties and laws made under them must comply with the Constitution. This article will explore the dynamic between federal and state law, the Supremacy Clause, and the implications for US citizens.

The Supremacy Clause

The Supreme Court has relied on the Supremacy Clause to establish a robust role for the federal government in managing the nation's affairs. The Court has interpreted the clause as supporting federal preemption, which means that federal law can preempt or override conflicting state laws. This preemption can be express, where federal law explicitly states its intent to preempt state law, or implied, where the intent is inferred from the structure and purpose of the federal law.

Treaties and federal statutes

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under its authority are the "supreme Law of the Land", taking precedence over any conflicting state laws. This clause has been described as an "unquestioned axiom" of the founding of the United States, and it applies to both federal statutes and treaties, with no superiority given to either.

Under the Supremacy Clause, international agreements made with the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate are considered treaties in the constitutional sense and are incorporated into US federal law, just like an act of Congress. Treaties, like federal statutes, are subject to judicial interpretation and review, and courts have consistently recognised them as legally binding under the Constitution.

The US Supreme Court first applied the Supremacy Clause in the 1796 case, Ware v. Hylton, ruling that a treaty superseded conflicting state law. In United States v. Schooner Peggy (1801), the Court ruled in favour of a private citizen's lawsuit against the government based on a treaty, elaborating on the supreme nature of ratified treaties. The Court held that treaties, like acts of Congress, are binding on the rights of parties litigating in court.

While the Supremacy Clause establishes the priority of federal law, it is important to note that federal statutes and treaties must still operate within the parameters of the Constitution. 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 specifically states that the federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule state court decisions. In cases like Arizona v. United States (2012), the Court has ruled that federal immigration law preempted state law, demonstrating the supremacy of federal law in certain areas.

State and federal law conflicts

The Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution (Article Six, Clause Two) states that the "supreme Law of the Land" encompasses federal statutes enacted by Congress. This clause gives federal law precedence over state laws, and courts are often tasked with determining whether federal law supersedes state laws in specific cases. The Supremacy Clause was first applied in the 1796 case of Ware v. Hylton, where the US Supreme Court ruled that a treaty superseded conflicting state law.

The basic principle that valid federal statutes override conflicting state laws is well-established. However, there are differing opinions on what constitutes a conflict, and the precise conditions under which federal law takes precedence remain open to debate. The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous cases involving state and federal law conflicts, and these rulings provide insights into how the Court interprets and applies the Supremacy Clause.

One notable case is Arizona v. United States (2012), where the Supreme Court held that federal immigration law took precedence over an Arizona state law that penalized undocumented immigrants working without authorization. The Court found that Arizona's law impeded the regulatory system established by Congress. This case exemplifies express preemption, where Congress explicitly includes a preemption clause in the statute.

Implied preemption, on the other hand, occurs when state and federal laws directly conflict or when federal law dominates a field that a state law seeks to regulate. This can lead to situations where a party is unable to comply with both sets of laws or where compliance with one set of laws violates the other. In Sperry v. Florida (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that federal patent law superseded Florida state law regarding the licensure of attorneys as patent agents, even though Congress had not expressly stated its intent for preemption.

The preemption doctrine was further elaborated in Altria Group v. Good (2008), where the Supreme Court stated that "state laws that conflict with federal law are without effect." The Court also emphasized that courts should generally err on the side of state authority when evaluating Congressional intent.

In summary, while the Supremacy Clause establishes the supremacy of federal law over state law, the specific circumstances under which this applies are more nuanced. Courts play a crucial role in interpreting and applying this clause, particularly in cases where state and federal laws conflict or overlap.

Preemption

In the United States, federal preemption occurs when a federal law takes precedence over a state law, rendering the latter invalid. This typically happens when a state law conflicts with a federal one, and such a conflict can arise in several ways. Firstly, a direct conflict may occur when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal laws, for example, if state law forbids something that federal law requires. Secondly, a conflict may exist if a state law poses an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress's objectives.

The Supremacy Clause, or Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, establishes the supremacy of federal law over state law. It states:

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy Clause has been described as an "unquestioned axiom of the founding" of the United States, and it was first applied by the Supreme Court in 1796 in the case of Ware v. Hylton, where a treaty superseded conflicting state law.

In the context of privacy laws, the debate surrounding preemption is particularly salient. While some argue that federal privacy laws should serve as a baseline with room for states to build upon, others advocate for federal preemption to prevent a "patchwork" of state laws. The American Data Privacy Protection Act (ADPPA), for instance, would override existing state privacy laws and prevent states from taking future action in these areas.

Congressional intent

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the "supreme law of the land", taking precedence over any conflicting state laws. This clause has been interpreted to mean that federal law supersedes state law in cases of conflict.

On the other hand, implied preemption occurs when state and federal laws directly conflict or when federal laws dominate a field that a state law seeks to regulate. In Sperry v. Florida (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that federal patent law preempted Florida's state licensure law regarding patent agents, even though Congress did not expressly state its intent for preemption. The Court held that preemption was "necessary and proper" to accomplish the goals of the patent laws, reflecting implied Congressional intent.

In evaluating Congressional intent, courts are generally cautioned to err on the side of state authority rather than federal authority. This was demonstrated in the Altria Group v. Good (2008) case, where the Supreme Court directed courts to interpret any ambiguity in a preemption clause in favor of state law.

The history of the United States also reflects a consistent flow of power from the states to the federal government, with constitutional amendments and Supreme Court decisions gradually expanding federal power and limiting state authority.

Frequently asked questions