Federal preemption refers to the invalidation of US state law when it conflicts with Federal law.

Constitutional basis

According to the Supremacy Clause

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S...

 (Article VI, clause 2) of the United States Constitution

United States Constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...

,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As the Supreme Court stated in Altria Group v. Good

Altria Group v. Good

In Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 , the United States Supreme Court held that a state law prohibiting deceptive tobacco advertising was not preempted by a federal law regulating cigarette advertising.-Facts:...

, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), a federal law that conflicts with a state law will trump, or "preempt", that state law:

Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are “without effect.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)

Intent of Congress presumed to be deference to states

In Altria Group v. Good, the Court wrote:

When the text of a pre-emption clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily “accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption.” Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC was a case before the United States Supreme Court.-Facts:Dow's Strongarm pesticide damaged the crop of a group of Texas peanut farmers...

, 544 U. S. 431, 449 (2005).

In Wyeth v. Levine

Wyeth v. Levine

Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 , is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal regulatory approval of a medication does not shield the manufacturer from liability under state law.-Vermont jury trial:...

(2009), the Court emphasized what it called the "two cornerstones" of pre-emption jurisprudence:

First, “the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, , is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the scope of federal preemption.-See also:* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 518* List of United States Supreme Court cases...

, 518 U. S. 470, 485 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 375 U. S. 96, 103 (1963). [Medtronic: "[O]ur analysis of the scope of the statute's pre-emption is guided by our oft-repeated comment, initially made in Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96, 103, ... (1963), that "the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touch-stone" in every pre-emption case."] Second, “[i]n all pre-emption cases, and particularly in those in which Congress has ‘legislated … in a field which the States have traditionally occupied,’ … we ‘start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’ ” Lohr, 518 U. S., at 485 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. 331 U.S. 218 , is a case dealing with "field preemption": the United States Supreme Court held that when a federal law regulates a field traditionally occupied by the states, the police powers of the States in that area of law are not necessarily preempted; Congress...

, 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947) ).

See also Reilly, 533 U. S., at 541–542 (citation omitted):

Because ‘federal law is said to bar state action in [a] fiel[d] of traditional state regulation,’ namely, advertising, we ‘wor[k] on the assumption that the historic police powers of the States [a]re not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress’.

Evidence of Congressional intent to preempt

In Altria Group v. Good

Altria Group v. Good

In Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 , the United States Supreme Court held that a state law prohibiting deceptive tobacco advertising was not preempted by a federal law regulating cigarette advertising.-Facts:...

, the Court reiterates that "Congress may indicate pre-emptive intent" in two ways: "through a statute’s express language or through its structure and purpose. See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977)".

Express Preemption

Express preemption occurs only when a federal statute explicitly confirms Congress's intention to preempt state law. English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78-79 (1990). "If a federal law contains an express pre-emption clause, it does not immediately end the inquiry because the question of the substance and scope of Congress’ displacement of state law still remains." Altria Group v. Good

Altria Group v. Good

In Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 , the United States Supreme Court held that a state law prohibiting deceptive tobacco advertising was not preempted by a federal law regulating cigarette advertising.-Facts:...

Implied Preemption

Implied preemption can occur in two ways: field preemption or conflict preemption. Massachusetts Ass'n of HMOs v. Ruthardt, 194 F.3d 176, 179 (1st Cir. 1999).

1. Conflict preemption

Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is preempted. Gibbons v. Ogden

Gibbons v. Ogden

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 , was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The case was argued by some of America's most admired and...

, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). Conflict arises when it is impossible to comply with both the state and federal regulations, or when the state law interposes an obstacle to the achievement of Congress's discernible objectives. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992).

Actual conflict. A conflict exists if a party cannot comply with both state law and federal law (for example, if state law forbids something that federal law requires). Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul

In Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 , the Supreme Court of the United States declined to invalidate a California law that imposed minimum maturity standards on avocados sold in the state, including those imported from other states. The law prohibited the retail sale of...

, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963).

Obstacle. In addition, even in the absence of a direct conflict between state and federal law, a conflict exists if the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372-73 (2000).

Minimum Safety Standard vs. Uniform Safety Standard

Often there may be a question of frustration of congressional purpose or the state law standing as an obstacle to congressional intent. This will raise a question of whether congressional or administrative intent in passing the law was uniformity or minimum national safety standards. Congressional intent may be to allow States to pass laws that will “establish greater safety than the minimum safety achieved by a federal regulation intended to provide a floor.” Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 870, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914 (2000).

Alternatively, the purpose of a federal law could be to set a uniform national standard. This was the case in Geier, where the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 required auto manufacturers to equip a certain number of their 1987 vehicles with passive restraints. Id. at 864-865. the question before the Supreme Court was whether the Act pre-empted state common-law tort claims saying that the auto manufacturer, although in compliance with the Act, “should nonetheless have equipped a 1987 automobile with airbags.” The court indicated that, despite a savings clause, the statute “reflects a desire to subject the industry to a single, uniform set of federal safety standards. Its pre-emption of all state standards, even those that might stand in harmony with federal law, suggests an intent to avoid conflict, uncertainty, cost, and occasional risk to safety itself that too many different safety–standard cooks might otherwise create.” Id. at 871.

2. Field preemption

Even without a conflict between federal and state law or an express provision for preemption, the courts will infer an intention to preempt state law if the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to “occupy the field” in that area of the law, i.e. to warrant an inference that Congress did not intend the states to supplement it. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992). See also Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. 331 U.S. 218 , is a case dealing with "field preemption": the United States Supreme Court held that when a federal law regulates a field traditionally occupied by the states, the police powers of the States in that area of law are not necessarily preempted; Congress...

For example, the courts have held that the National Labor Relations Act

National Labor Relations Act

The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act , is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions , engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in...

 (NLRA) preempts state laws directed at conduct actually or arguably prohibited or protected by the NLRA or conduct Congress intended to leave unregulated. San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244 (1959); Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Commission, 427 U.S. 132, 140-48 (1976).

External links

• California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, (reviewing preemption doctrine).
• Perry, Ronen (2011). "Differential Preemption" Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 72 (discussing maritime preemption)