šŗšø
Constitutional Law ā¢ The Supremacy Clause
CONLAW#039
Legal Definition
Federal law expressly preempts state regulation where a federal statute states expressly that federal law is exclusive.
Plain English Explanation
States are allowed to create their own laws and regulations as long as they don't conflict with Federal laws and regulations. Itās similar to when you live at your parents' house. You might have some freedom to decorate your room or decide which friends to invite over, but any rules you make for your space are ultimately subject to the more powerful, supreme rules your parents have established for the entire home. In other words, when one of your rules conflicts with one of your parents' rules, your rule no longer matters. It is "preempted" by your parents' rules.
There are 3 types of "preemption" in these situations, and itās helpful to discuss all three so you can compare and contrast them.
(1) Express Preemption occurs when the Federal government explicitly states that a particular law or regulation is the domain of the Federal government, leaving no room for state control. This would be like your parents saying, "You're not allowed to have a boy/girl sleep over in your room." It leaves no wiggle room; the rule is clear. Any attempt to create a rule that bypasses this restriction would be "expressly preempted" by the Federal law, which takes precedence.
(2) Implied Preemption occurs when there is an unavoidable conflict between state laws and federal laws, even if not explicitly stated. This happens in two ways:
Conflict Preemption: This occurs when itās impossible to comply with both state and federal law. For example, if your parents say, "All thermostats in the house must be set to no colder than 72 degrees," but you make a rule in your room that "The thermostat must be set to at least 68 degrees," your rule conflicts with your parents' rule. Obeying your rule would require disobeying your parents, so even though they didnāt expressly forbid your rule, it is "impliedly preempted" because your parentsā rule is superior.
Obstacle Preemption: This happens when a state law creates an obstacle to the goals of federal law. Imagine your parents made a rule that "all power outlets in the house must offer a USB-C charging port" to create uniformity and reduce annoyance when charging devices. However, you decide that all outlets in your room should have both USB-C and USB-A charge ports. You weren't expressly told not to install USB-A, and thereās no direct conflict, but youāve created an obstacle that undermines your parents' goal of uniformity. They might require you to change it to fulfill their objective.
(3) Field Preemption occurs when the Federal government creates so many laws and regulations in a specific area that itās clear Congress intends to "occupy the field exclusively," leaving no room for states to create their own regulations, even if they technically could do so without causing conflict. Imagine if your parents said youāre not allowed to hang anything on your walls using glue, tape, nails, staples, 3M strips, or saliva. They didnāt explicitly say you couldnāt hang anything, but by creating a comprehensive set of rules, they clearly intend to occupy the field of wall-hanging entirely. Trying to find a loophole, like using static electricity, would likely still get you in trouble because your parentsā intent to control that area is obvious.
In the real world, a common example of field preemption is immigration law. Immigration law is primarily the domain of the Federal government, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Federal government's regulation of immigration is so comprehensive that it preempts state laws attempting to regulate immigration, even when they donāt directly conflict with Federal law. Another way Congress can preempt an entire field is by creating an agency to administer it. For example, if your parents say, "Your sibling is now in charge of how laundry is done in this house," itās clear that you have no authority to make decisions about laundry. Similarly, in the real world, the FCC is an agency established to administer the field of radio wave frequencies within the United States, preempting any stateās attempt to regulate radio waves within their borders.
There are 3 types of "preemption" in these situations, and itās helpful to discuss all three so you can compare and contrast them.
(1) Express Preemption occurs when the Federal government explicitly states that a particular law or regulation is the domain of the Federal government, leaving no room for state control. This would be like your parents saying, "You're not allowed to have a boy/girl sleep over in your room." It leaves no wiggle room; the rule is clear. Any attempt to create a rule that bypasses this restriction would be "expressly preempted" by the Federal law, which takes precedence.
(2) Implied Preemption occurs when there is an unavoidable conflict between state laws and federal laws, even if not explicitly stated. This happens in two ways:
Conflict Preemption: This occurs when itās impossible to comply with both state and federal law. For example, if your parents say, "All thermostats in the house must be set to no colder than 72 degrees," but you make a rule in your room that "The thermostat must be set to at least 68 degrees," your rule conflicts with your parents' rule. Obeying your rule would require disobeying your parents, so even though they didnāt expressly forbid your rule, it is "impliedly preempted" because your parentsā rule is superior.
Obstacle Preemption: This happens when a state law creates an obstacle to the goals of federal law. Imagine your parents made a rule that "all power outlets in the house must offer a USB-C charging port" to create uniformity and reduce annoyance when charging devices. However, you decide that all outlets in your room should have both USB-C and USB-A charge ports. You weren't expressly told not to install USB-A, and thereās no direct conflict, but youāve created an obstacle that undermines your parents' goal of uniformity. They might require you to change it to fulfill their objective.
(3) Field Preemption occurs when the Federal government creates so many laws and regulations in a specific area that itās clear Congress intends to "occupy the field exclusively," leaving no room for states to create their own regulations, even if they technically could do so without causing conflict. Imagine if your parents said youāre not allowed to hang anything on your walls using glue, tape, nails, staples, 3M strips, or saliva. They didnāt explicitly say you couldnāt hang anything, but by creating a comprehensive set of rules, they clearly intend to occupy the field of wall-hanging entirely. Trying to find a loophole, like using static electricity, would likely still get you in trouble because your parentsā intent to control that area is obvious.
In the real world, a common example of field preemption is immigration law. Immigration law is primarily the domain of the Federal government, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Federal government's regulation of immigration is so comprehensive that it preempts state laws attempting to regulate immigration, even when they donāt directly conflict with Federal law. Another way Congress can preempt an entire field is by creating an agency to administer it. For example, if your parents say, "Your sibling is now in charge of how laundry is done in this house," itās clear that you have no authority to make decisions about laundry. Similarly, in the real world, the FCC is an agency established to administer the field of radio wave frequencies within the United States, preempting any stateās attempt to regulate radio waves within their borders.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Hypofornia passes a law attempting to set its own air quality standards, which are significantly lower than those established by a recent federal Clean Air Act, which explicitly states that "no state may enact or enforce any air quality standard that is less stringent than those established under this Act." Result: Hypofornia's law is nullified due to express preemption. The federal Clean Air Act's specific clause overrides state law, ensuring that all states adhere to a uniform standard of air quality control.
Hypo 2: New Hypoland introduces its own airport security measures, including additional screenings and procedures not outlined by the TSA, despite federal law stating, "state and local governments may not impose their own security measures at airports operated by commercial airlines." Result: New Hypoland's security measures are preempted by federal law. The explicit preemption clause in the TSA's founding legislation nullifies any state or local government attempts to impose additional or conflicting airport security measures.
Hypo 3: Following the FDA's approval of a new drug, including an express preemption clause stating that "state and local governments may not require additional safety or efficacy testing for this drug," Hypofornia tries to enact a law requiring further testing within its jurisdiction. Result: Hypofornia's law is in direct conflict with the express preemption clause in the FDA's drug approval, rendering the state's additional testing requirements void and emphasizing the federal authority in pharmaceutical regulation.
Hypo 4: In an attempt to address living costs, Hypofornia sets a state minimum wage at $11 per hour, below the federal minimum wage of $12 per hour, which includes a clause stating, "no state may set a minimum wage lower than the federal minimum wage." Result: Hypofornia's lower minimum wage is invalidated by the federal law due to express preemption. This ensures that all workers across the country receive at least the federal minimum wage.
Hypo 2: New Hypoland introduces its own airport security measures, including additional screenings and procedures not outlined by the TSA, despite federal law stating, "state and local governments may not impose their own security measures at airports operated by commercial airlines." Result: New Hypoland's security measures are preempted by federal law. The explicit preemption clause in the TSA's founding legislation nullifies any state or local government attempts to impose additional or conflicting airport security measures.
Hypo 3: Following the FDA's approval of a new drug, including an express preemption clause stating that "state and local governments may not require additional safety or efficacy testing for this drug," Hypofornia tries to enact a law requiring further testing within its jurisdiction. Result: Hypofornia's law is in direct conflict with the express preemption clause in the FDA's drug approval, rendering the state's additional testing requirements void and emphasizing the federal authority in pharmaceutical regulation.
Hypo 4: In an attempt to address living costs, Hypofornia sets a state minimum wage at $11 per hour, below the federal minimum wage of $12 per hour, which includes a clause stating, "no state may set a minimum wage lower than the federal minimum wage." Result: Hypofornia's lower minimum wage is invalidated by the federal law due to express preemption. This ensures that all workers across the country receive at least the federal minimum wage.
Visual Aids
