11.3 Preemption
10 min read•august 20, 2024
allows national laws to override state laws when conflicts arise. This legal doctrine stems from the Constitution's , which establishes federal law as the "supreme law of the land." Preemption plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power between federal and state governments.
Understanding preemption is essential for grasping the complexities of federalism in the United States. It impacts various areas of law and policy, including immigration, , and healthcare. Preemption cases often involve disputes between states and the federal government over the scope of federal authority.
Definition of preemption
- Preemption is a legal doctrine that allows federal law to supersede or take precedence over state law when there is a conflict between the two
- Rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the Constitution and federal laws as the "supreme law of the land"
- Preemption is a key concept in the study of federalism and the balance of power between the federal government and the states in the U.S. system of government
Preemption vs supremacy clause
Top images from around the web for Preemption vs supremacy clause
The Development of the Constitution – American Government (2e – Second Edition) View original
Is this image relevant?
Division of Powers | Texas Government 1.0 View original
Is this image relevant?
Federalism: How should power be structurally divided? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
The Development of the Constitution – American Government (2e – Second Edition) View original
Is this image relevant?
Division of Powers | Texas Government 1.0 View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Preemption vs supremacy clause
The Development of the Constitution – American Government (2e – Second Edition) View original
Is this image relevant?
Division of Powers | Texas Government 1.0 View original
Is this image relevant?
Federalism: How should power be structurally divided? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
The Development of the Constitution – American Government (2e – Second Edition) View original
Is this image relevant?
Division of Powers | Texas Government 1.0 View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- The Supremacy Clause is the constitutional basis for the doctrine of preemption
- Found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution
- Establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the "supreme law of the land"
- Preemption is the practical application of the Supremacy Clause
- Allows federal law to override conflicting state laws
- Ensures that federal policies and regulations are implemented consistently across the country
Types of preemption
- occurs when a federal law explicitly states that it preempts state law on a particular issue
- occurs when a federal law does not explicitly preempt state law but the courts determine that it was the intent of Congress to do so
- : Federal law is so comprehensive that it leaves no room for state regulation in that area
- : State law directly conflicts with federal law, making compliance with both impossible
Preemption in the constitution
- The U.S. Constitution establishes the framework for the federal system of government and the division of power between the federal government and the states
- Preemption is a key tool for maintaining the balance of power and ensuring that federal policies are implemented consistently across the country
Preemption in article VI
- Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause
- "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..."
- The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties as the highest form of law in the United States
- Provides the constitutional basis for the doctrine of preemption
- Ensures that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws
Necessary and proper clause
- The , also known as the Elastic Clause, is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution
- Grants Congress the power to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out its enumerated powers
- The Necessary and Proper Clause has been interpreted to expand the scope of federal power and the ability of Congress to preempt state laws
- Allows Congress to pass laws that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but are necessary to carry out its enumerated powers
- Has been used to justify federal preemption in areas such as environmental regulation and
Federal preemption of state laws
- Federal preemption is the process by which federal law supersedes or overrides conflicting state laws
- Preemption can occur through express preemption, where a federal law explicitly states that it preempts state law, or through implied preemption, where the courts determine that it was the intent of Congress to preempt state law
Express vs implied preemption
- Express preemption occurs when a federal law contains language that explicitly states that it preempts state law on a particular issue
- Example: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) explicitly preempts state laws that relate to employee benefit plans
- Implied preemption occurs when a federal law does not explicitly preempt state law but the courts determine that it was the intent of Congress to do so
- Can take the form of field preemption or conflict preemption
- Requires the courts to interpret the intent of Congress and the scope of federal regulation in a particular area
Field vs conflict preemption
- Field preemption occurs when federal law is so comprehensive that it leaves no room for state regulation in that area
- Example: The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has been interpreted to preempt state laws that attempt to regulate union organizing and collective bargaining
- Conflict preemption occurs when state law directly conflicts with federal law, making compliance with both impossible
- Example: State laws that attempt to regulate the labeling of generic drugs have been found to be preempted by federal regulations issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Texas laws and preemption
- As a state within the United States, Texas is subject to federal preemption in various areas of law and policy
- Understanding the scope of federal preemption is crucial for Texas lawmakers and citizens, as it determines the extent to which state laws can be enforced
Areas of federal preemption in Texas
- Immigration: Federal law preempts many aspects of state immigration policy, such as the regulation of border security and the enforcement of immigration laws
- Environmental regulation: Federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, preempt state laws that attempt to set different standards or regulations
- Healthcare: Federal healthcare laws, such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicare, preempt state laws that conflict with their provisions or attempt to regulate the same areas
Texas laws preempted by federal law
- Texas's voter ID law (SB 14) was challenged in court and found to be preempted by the federal Voting Rights Act
- The law required voters to present specific forms of photo ID at the polls, which was found to discriminate against minority voters
- Texas's attempt to regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste was preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act
- The Act gives the federal government exclusive authority to regulate the disposal of radioactive materials
- Portions of Texas's tort reform laws, which limit the ability of plaintiffs to sue for medical malpractice, have been found to be preempted by ERISA when they apply to employee benefit plans
Preemption court cases
- Preemption cases often involve disputes between states and the federal government over the scope of federal power and the ability of states to regulate certain areas
- The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption, establishing key precedents that guide lower courts in deciding preemption cases
Landmark preemption cases
- (1819): Established the doctrine of implied powers and the supremacy of federal law over conflicting state laws
- The Court ruled that a state could not tax a federal bank, as this would interfere with the federal government's implied power to establish a national banking system
- (1824): Affirmed the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce and preempt conflicting state laws
- The Court ruled that a federal license to operate steamboats on interstate waterways preempted a New York state law granting a monopoly to a particular company
- (1956): Established the doctrine of field preemption
- The Court ruled that the federal Smith Act, which prohibited advocating the overthrow of the government, preempted a Pennsylvania state law that attempted to regulate the same conduct
Texas preemption cases
- (2000): The Supreme Court ruled that a Massachusetts law restricting state agencies from doing business with companies that trade with Burma (Myanmar) was preempted by federal sanctions against Burma
- This case set a precedent for the preemption of state laws that conflict with federal foreign policy, which has implications for Texas's attempts to regulate international trade and investment
- (2003): The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Texas law restricting the use of federal funds for abortion services was preempted by the federal Medicaid Act
- The court found that the Texas law conflicted with the federal requirement that states provide Medicaid funding for medically necessary abortions
- (2015): The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's injunction against the implementation of President Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program
- The court found that the states, including Texas, were likely to succeed on their claim that the DAPA program violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act and was not authorized by federal immigration law
Preemption and state sovereignty
- The doctrine of preemption is a key aspect of the balance of power between the federal government and the states in the U.S. system of government
- While preemption allows the federal government to ensure the uniformity and consistency of national policies, it also raises concerns about the erosion of and the ability of states to address local issues
Preemption as a limit on state power
- Preemption restricts the ability of states to pass laws and implement policies that conflict with federal law
- States must comply with federal regulations and standards in areas where federal law has preempted state law
- This can limit the ability of states to address local concerns or experiment with innovative policies
- Critics argue that the expansion of federal preemption has led to a of power in the federal government and a diminution of state autonomy
- Some view this as a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people
Arguments for state sovereignty
- Proponents of state sovereignty argue that the states should have the primary authority to regulate local issues and address the needs of their citizens
- They contend that state governments are more responsive to local concerns and better equipped to tailor policies to the specific circumstances of their states
- Some advocates of state sovereignty view federal preemption as an infringement on the principles of federalism and a threat to the diversity and experimentation that are hallmarks of the U.S. system of government
- They argue that allowing states to serve as "laboratories of democracy" can lead to the development of innovative policies that can be adopted by other states or the federal government
- Defenders of state sovereignty also point to the importance of preserving over issues such as education, land use, and criminal justice, which have traditionally been within the purview of state and local governments
Preemption in specific areas
- Federal preemption has a significant impact on various areas of law and policy, ranging from immigration and environmental regulation to healthcare and consumer protection
- Understanding the scope and implications of preemption in these areas is crucial for state lawmakers, businesses, and citizens
Preemption in immigration law
- Federal law preempts most aspects of state immigration policy, as the regulation of immigration is considered a core federal responsibility
- States are generally prohibited from enacting laws that discriminate against immigrants or interfere with federal immigration enforcement
- However, states can play a role in certain areas, such as the issuance of driver's licenses and the provision of public benefits to immigrants
- Key federal immigration laws, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), preempt conflicting state laws
- For example, IRCA preempts state laws that impose sanctions on employers for hiring undocumented workers, as this is regulated by federal law
- Recent state attempts to enforce immigration laws, such as Arizona's SB 1070, have been largely preempted by federal courts
- The Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. United States (2012) that several provisions of SB 1070, including a requirement that police check the immigration status of individuals they suspect are undocumented, were preempted by federal law
Preemption in environmental regulation
- Federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), establish national standards for air and water quality and preempt conflicting state laws
- States are required to implement and enforce these standards but can also adopt more stringent regulations with EPA approval
- The CAA explicitly preempts state regulation of motor vehicle emissions, as this is considered a national issue requiring uniform standards
- The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) preempts state laws that attempt to regulate the use of certain chemicals, such as asbestos and lead-based paint
- However, states can still regulate the disposal of these substances and the cleanup of contaminated sites
- The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes federal standards for the management of hazardous waste but allows states to develop their own programs if they are at least as stringent as the federal requirements
- States can also impose additional requirements on the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste within their borders
Preemption in healthcare policy
- Federal healthcare laws, such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), preempt conflicting state laws and establish national standards for health insurance and patient privacy
- The ACA requires states to establish health insurance exchanges and expand Medicaid coverage but allows them flexibility in the design and implementation of these programs
- HIPAA preempts state laws that provide less protection for patient privacy but allows states to enact more stringent regulations
- The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts state laws that relate to employee benefit plans, including health insurance plans
- This has limited the ability of states to regulate the content and administration of employer-sponsored health plans
- However, ERISA does not preempt state laws that regulate insurance, banking, or securities, allowing states to impose certain requirements on health insurers operating within their borders
- The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) preempts state laws that impose different or additional requirements on the labeling and marketing of prescription drugs and medical devices
- This ensures that these products are regulated uniformly across the country and that manufacturers do not face conflicting state requirements
- However, states can still regulate the practice of medicine and pharmacy within their borders, including the prescribing and dispensing of drugs
Key Terms to Review (24)
Centralization: Centralization refers to the concentration of decision-making authority and power within a single, central entity or organization. This structure often leads to uniform policies and regulations across a jurisdiction, allowing for greater control and coordination but potentially limiting local autonomy and responsiveness to specific community needs.
Conflict preemption: Conflict preemption is a legal doctrine where federal law overrides or invalidates state laws when there is a direct conflict between the two. This concept is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state laws in cases of inconsistency. Understanding conflict preemption helps clarify the relationship between federal and state powers, especially when states enact laws that may interfere with national policies or objectives.
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council: Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is a significant Supreme Court case from 2000 that addressed the issue of preemption in relation to state laws that conflict with federal laws. The ruling determined that Massachusetts’ law, which imposed restrictions on businesses doing trade with Myanmar, was preempted by federal foreign affairs powers, highlighting the supremacy of federal authority in international trade matters.
Decentralization: Decentralization refers to the distribution of authority and responsibility from a central government to regional or local governments. This process allows local entities to have greater control over their affairs, making decisions that directly affect their communities. It encourages participation and responsiveness, as local governments can tailor policies to meet the unique needs of their populations.
Environmental Regulation: Environmental regulation refers to the collection of laws, rules, and standards set by governments to protect the environment from harmful activities and to promote sustainable practices. These regulations can cover a wide range of issues including air and water quality, waste management, and wildlife conservation, aiming to balance economic growth with environmental protection.
Express preemption: Express preemption refers to a legal doctrine where a higher level of government, typically federal, explicitly overrides state or local laws in a specific area. This occurs when Congress passes legislation that clearly states its intention to occupy a field of regulation, preventing states from enacting conflicting laws. It emphasizes the supremacy of federal law in designated matters and helps ensure uniformity across jurisdictions.
Federal preemption: Federal preemption is a legal doctrine that occurs when federal law takes precedence over state laws in cases where both govern the same subject matter. This principle is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law supersedes state law when there is a conflict. It ensures a unified legal framework across states, preventing states from enacting laws that contradict federal regulations.
Field Preemption: Field preemption occurs when a higher level of government occupies a specific area of law or regulation, effectively preventing lower levels of government from enacting or enforcing conflicting laws within that field. This principle is often applied in contexts where federal laws are designed to be comprehensive, thereby leaving no room for state or local legislation in the same area. Field preemption can impact various policy areas such as immigration, environmental regulations, and labor laws.
Gibbons v. Ogden: Gibbons v. Ogden was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1824 that established the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. The ruling clarified the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, emphasizing that federal law takes precedence over state laws when they conflict, particularly in matters affecting trade across state lines.
Healthcare policy: Healthcare policy refers to the decisions, goals, and actions that determine the administration, organization, and financing of healthcare services. It encompasses regulations, laws, and guidelines that govern healthcare systems, aiming to improve health outcomes, access to care, and the quality of services provided. Understanding healthcare policy is crucial as it shapes the structure and functioning of health systems, influences public health initiatives, and affects the distribution of healthcare resources.
Implied preemption: Implied preemption is a legal doctrine that occurs when a higher authority's regulation or law is deemed to override or invalidate a lower authority's law, even without explicit wording stating such. This often arises in the context of federal and state laws, where federal laws can implicitly prevent states from enacting conflicting legislation, ensuring uniformity and preventing a patchwork of laws that could arise from differing state regulations.
Judicial review: Judicial review is the power of courts to assess whether a law, policy, or executive action is in accordance with the Constitution. This process ensures that no law or government action violates constitutional principles and serves as a vital mechanism for maintaining the balance of power within government. It connects deeply to systems of checks and balances, the roles of different courts, and the selection process of judges, as well as how state laws interact with federal authority.
Legal Standing: Legal standing refers to the ability of an individual or entity to demonstrate a sufficient connection to a law or legal issue, allowing them to bring a lawsuit or challenge a legal decision. It ensures that only parties with a legitimate interest in the matter at hand can seek judicial relief, thereby maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. This concept is crucial in determining who has the right to sue and under what circumstances, linking it directly to the principle of judicial review.
Local control: Local control refers to the authority and power that local governments have to make decisions and manage their own affairs without excessive interference from the state or federal government. This concept emphasizes the importance of allowing communities to tailor policies, programs, and regulations to meet their specific needs and priorities, fostering greater accountability and responsiveness at the local level.
McCulloch v. Maryland: McCulloch v. Maryland is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1819 that established the principle of federal supremacy over state laws and confirmed the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States. The decision affirmed that states cannot tax federal institutions, reinforcing the division of powers between state and federal governments and impacting the interpretation of state sovereignty.
Necessary and Proper Clause: The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, grants Congress the power to pass laws deemed necessary and proper for executing its enumerated powers. This clause allows for flexibility in legislation and helps ensure that the government can adapt to changing circumstances. Its broad interpretation has significant implications for the division of powers between federal and state governments, as well as for preemption in cases where federal law supersedes state law.
Pennsylvania v. Nelson: Pennsylvania v. Nelson is a significant Supreme Court case from 1956 that addressed the issue of preemption, specifically in relation to federal authority over state law. The ruling established that when federal and state laws conflict, federal law prevails, thereby limiting the ability of states to legislate in areas where Congress has exercised its authority. This case highlights the balance of power between state and federal governments, emphasizing the importance of preemption in the American legal system.
Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas v. Sanchez: Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas v. Sanchez is a significant legal case involving the challenge to state funding cuts for health services, particularly those related to reproductive health and family planning. This case raised important issues regarding preemption, specifically whether state laws could undermine federal protections for healthcare providers and their patients.
Preemptive legislation: Preemptive legislation refers to laws enacted by a higher level of government that invalidate or take precedence over conflicting laws from a lower level of government. This concept is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which establishes that federal law generally takes precedence over state law, allowing for the creation of regulations that can limit state authority. It serves as a mechanism for maintaining uniformity in laws across jurisdictions and can address issues that require consistent legal standards.
Robert Post: Robert Post is a prominent legal scholar known for his contributions to constitutional law and First Amendment theory. He emphasizes the importance of the public discourse theory, arguing that the First Amendment should protect not just individual expression but also the collective process of democratic deliberation. His insights highlight the role of communication in shaping democratic values and the necessity of protecting various forms of speech to foster an informed citizenry.
State Sovereignty: State sovereignty refers to the authority of a state to govern itself and make decisions independently without interference from external powers. This principle is foundational in understanding how states interact within a federal system, especially in terms of their legal powers, rights, and responsibilities. It plays a critical role in the relationship between state and federal governments, impacting how laws are created, enforced, and contested within a given state.
Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause is a constitutional provision in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, establishing that federal law takes precedence over state laws when there is a conflict. This principle ensures that the Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land, which is crucial for maintaining a unified legal framework across states and preventing states from undermining federal authority.
Texas v. United States: Texas v. United States was a significant legal case in which the state of Texas challenged the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program implemented by the federal government. The case centered around issues of state versus federal power and preemption, where Texas argued that DAPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act and imposed unfair costs on the state.
William J. Brennan Jr.: William J. Brennan Jr. was an influential Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990, known for his strong advocacy of civil liberties and individual rights. His judicial philosophy emphasized the importance of the First Amendment and the right to free speech, often expanding the role of the Supreme Court in protecting these rights against state infringement. Brennan's legacy includes shaping significant legal precedents that continue to impact constitutional law today.