Preemption (law)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (May 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
 |
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007) |
- This article is about the relationship of federal law to state law in the United States. For the U.S. land transfers, see Preemption Act of 1841; for other uses, see Preemption.
In the legal system of the United States, preemption generally refers to the displacing effect that federal law will have on a conflicting or inconsistent state law. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, section 2) of the United States Constitution states that The Laws of the United States, (which shall be made in Pursuance to the Constitution), shall be the supreme Law of the land. Thus, when there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, the federal law (subject to the Tenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment and other Constitutional Law) trumps – or "preempts" – the state law, according to this theory. The term is also sometimes used to refer to the displacing effect state laws might have on ordinances enacted by municipalities.
The term "preemption" is also used in federal statutes in the context of land, such as in the historic Preemption Act of 1841, which allowed settlers the opportunity to legally obtain title to land if a settler remained on a plot of land for a certain time. This article does not cover that legal use of the term.
[edit] Types of preemption
Two situations where preemption claims might or may arise: express preemption and implied preemption.
- Express preemption occurs where Congress says within the statute 'we hereby preempt' or uses words of similar import. Here, federal laws are explicitly precluding state and local regulations.
- Implied preemption has, within itself, three sub-categories: conflicts preemption, preemption because state law impedes the achievement of a federal objective, and preemption because federal law occupies the field.
- Conflicts preemption is where it is impossible to comply with both the federal statute and the state or local law. In this situation, the federal statute must be followed. It is, however, appropriate to have two laws, one federal and one state, that differ. The federal law, in this case, may be a minimum standard, while the state enacts a law to be more strict. State law, therefore, would not be preempted. Preemption would only occur if the federal and state laws were mutually exclusive.
- The second type of implied preemption is preemption because state law impedes the achievement of a federal objective. This type of preemption occurs when a state or local law interferes with a goal or objective Congress was trying to attain with a federal statute. The purpose of each law must be determined and compared to each other. If both laws are trying to achieve the same goal, federal law will preempt the state or local regulation.
- The final type of implied preemption is preemption because federal law occupies the field. In this situation, one must look at Congress's intent, and whether the federal law was meant to be exclusive in that area. The most common examples are in areas of foreign policy and immigration. Implied preemption has also been held to apply to the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), giving the federal government the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve Labor Union versus Employer contract disputes, as well as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction (with minor exceptions) over enforcement of the substantive provisions of employer-sponsored Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (Cigna v. Calad, 2004), under the assumption that these laws were made "in Persuance" of the Constitution.
[edit] Case law
Courts have developed an enormous and complicated body of case law to resolve conflicts between federal and state laws. As a general rule, there is a presumption in favor of the validity of a state law; thus, courts will attempt to reconcile seemingly inconsistent state and federal laws where possible. If the laws are truly irreconcilable, then the federal law will generally preempt the state law only to the extent of the inconsistency. There are many exceptions to these general rules, however. For example, Congress may declare its intent to make the federal government the primary source of law in a particular area, which will result in state laws regulating that area being preempted even if they are not inconsistent with the federal law. Even in the absence of any indication that Congress intended to "occupy the field" of a particular subject matter, courts will be more likely to find a state law to be preempted by federal law if it touches upon an area where there has historically been a strong federal interest, such as banking, interstate commerce, or foreign affairs.
Examples of Supreme Court cases involving the preemption doctrine include Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963), Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992); Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000); and Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
