Preemption

Preemption in the United States

Introduction to Preemption

According to the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, Preemption means that, as a result of the exercise of federal authority in a given regulatory area, preexisting concurrent state authority to regulate that same area comes to an end. Although earlier in this century, the Supreme Court viewed preemption as an automatic consequence. (…) The supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article VI, clause 2) requires that inconsistent state laws yield to valid federal laws. Preemption is the term applied to describe invalidation of state laws by superior federal law.

Presidential Memoranda

Presidential Memoranda in relation with preemption (May 20, 2009):

“From our Nation’s founding, the American constitutional order has been a Federal system, ensuring a strong role for both the national Government and the States. The Federal Government’s role in promoting the general welfare and guarding individual liberties is critical, but State law and national law often operate concurrently to provide independent safeguards for the public. Throughout our history, State and local governments have frequently protected health, safety, and the environment more aggressively than has the national Government.

An understanding of the important role of State governments in our Federal system is reflected in longstanding practices by executive departments and agencies, which have shown respect for the traditional prerogatives of the States. In recent years, however, notwithstanding Executive Order 13132 of August 4, 1999 (Federalism), executive departments and agencies have sometimes announced that their regulations preempt State law, including State common law, without explicit preemption by the Congress or an otherwise sufficient basis under applicable legal principles.

The purpose of this memorandum is to state the general policy of my Administration that preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption. Executive departments and agencies should be mindful that in our Federal system, the citizens of the several States have distinctive circumstances and values, and that in many instances it is appropriate for them to apply to themselves rules and principles that reflect these circumstances and values. As Justice Brandeis explained more than 70 years ago, “[i]t is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

To ensure that executive departments and agencies include statements of preemption in regulations only when such statements have a sufficient legal basis:

1. Heads of departments and agencies should not include in regulatory preambles statements that the department or agency intends to preempt State law through the regulation except where preemption provisions are also included in the codified regulation.

2. Heads of departments and agencies should not include preemption provisions in codified regulations except where such provisions would be justified under legal principles governing preemption, including the principles outlined in Executive Order 13132.

3. Heads of departments and agencies should review regulations issued within the past 10 years that contain statements in regulatory preambles or codified provisions intended by the department or agency to preempt State law, in order to decide whether such statements or provisions are justified under applicable legal principles governing preemption. Where the head of a department or agency determines that a regulatory statement of preemption or codified regulatory provision cannot be so justified, the head of that department or agency should initiate appropriate action, which may include amendment of the relevant regulation.

Executive departments and agencies shall carry out the provisions of this memorandum to the extent permitted by law and consistent with their statutory authorities. Heads of departments and agencies should consult as necessary with the Attorney General and the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to determine how the requirements of this memorandum apply to particular situations.

Preemption (Federal Common Law)

This section introduces, discusses and describes the basics of preemption. Then, cross references and a brief overview about Federal Common Law is provided. Finally, the subject of Federal, State Interrelationships in relation with preemption is examined. Note that a list of cross references, bibliography and other resources appears at the end of this entry.

Resources

See Also

Federalism; States’ Rights.

Further Reading (Articles)

Preemption in Products Liability Cases: An Analysis of Federal Product Preemption under FIFRA and Bates V. Dow Agrosciences, Defense Counsel Journal; April 1, 2007; Davis, William M. Ryan, Elizabeth Haecker

Preemption (Update), Encyclopedia of the American Constitution; January 1, 2000

Preemption and Textualism, Michigan Law Review; October 1, 2013; Meltzer, Daniel J.

Legislating Preemption, William and Mary Law Review; October 1, 2011; Sharpe, Jamelle C.

Preemption as Purposivism’s Last Refuge, Harvard Law Review; February 1, 2013

Preemption and Choice-of-Law Coordination, Michigan Law Review; March 1, 2013; O’Connor, Erin O’Hara Ribstein, Larry E.

Preemption of Common Law Claims and the Prospects for FIFRA: Justice Stevens Puts the Genie Back in the Bottle, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum; September 22, 2004; Hendricks, Jennifer S.

The Shifting Preemption Paradigm: Conceptual and Interpretive Issues, Vanderbilt Law Review; October 1, 1998; Jordan, Karen A.

Preemption Choice: The Theory, Law, and Reality of Federalism’s Core Question.(Book review), Constitutional Commentary; June 22, 2010; Greve, Michael S.

Preemption May Not Be as Weak as You Heard, American Banker; March 15, 2011; Hopkins, Cheyenne

Preemption’s New Status, ABA Banking Journal; August 1, 2010; Sivon, James C.

Federal Preemption: States’ Powers, National Interests.(Book review), Trial; February 1, 2008; Chemerinsky, Erwin

Federal preemption in railroad-crossing litigation revisited. (Transportation), Trial; March 1, 1994; Haralson, Dale

Preempting the preemption defense., Trial; July 1, 1998; Wolfman, Brian Stevick, Douglas L.

Inside agency preemption., Michigan Law Review; February 1, 2012; Sharkey, Catherine M.

State preemption of local smoke-free laws in government work sites, private work sites, and restaurants–United States, 2005-2009., MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report; February 5, 2010; Babb, S. Tynan, M. MacNeil, A.

Don’t let preemption ground your aviation case: defendants in aviation lawsuits are pushing the preemption argument hard to get cases removed to federal court or stop them before they leave the gate. Help your case take off by honing your anti-preemption strategy., Trial; March 1, 2007; Slack, Michael L. Bowen, Donna

The Politics of Preemption: An Application of Preemption Jurisprudence and Policy to California Assembly Bill 1493, Environmental Law; January 1, 2007; Colangelo, Sara A.

Federalism in flight: preemption doctrine and air crash litigation.(federal preemption and domestic air accident litigation), Transportation Law Journal; September 22, 2000; Kelly, Sean S.

The Future Of Preemption Under The National Bank Act In The Wake Of Dodd-Frank.(Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010)(Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson)(Case overview), Mondaq Business Briefing; December 20, 2011