Implied Preemption
Implied preemption is what you reach for when Congress did not write a preemption clause, but federal law still has to win because the Supremacy Clause makes it the supreme la
10. Implied Preemption
Even when Congress does not explicitly preempt state law, the federal law may override state laws pursuant to the doctrine of implied preemption. This is said to be necessary to give full effect to the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which declares federal law to be the “supreme law of the land.”
- A valid act of Congress or federal regulation supersedes any state or local action that conflicts with the federal rule, whether by commanding conduct inconsistent with that required by the federal rule, or by forbidding conduct that the federal rule is designed to foster.
- Implied preemption analysis is largely a matter of interpreting Congressional statements or silence about the preemptive effect of the federal legislation in question.
- There are two important types of implied preemption:
- Where the state law prevents achievement of a federal objective, and
- Where Congress intends to “occupy the field.”
- State law will be held to be impliedly preempted if it interferes with achievement of a federal objective, even if the state or local law was enacted for a valid purpose and not merely to frustrate the federal government.
- For example, a state law providing for suspension of the driver’s license of persons who have failed to pay off auto accident judgments, regardless of the judgment debtor’s discharge in bankruptcy, was held to be preempted because it interfered with the objective of the federal bankruptcy laws to give bankrupts a fresh start, free of their old debts. Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 (1971).
- Under “field preemption,” a state or local law may also be found to be preempted if it appears that Congress intended to “occupy” the entire field, thus precluding any state or local regulation.
- To analyze field preemption, the courts will look at the federal regulatory scheme to deduce Congress’s intent, often finding preemption if the federal laws are comprehensive or a federal agency is created to oversee the field.
- In all preemption cases, especially any involving a field traditionally within the power of the states (e.g., regulations involving health, safety, or welfare), there is a presumption against preemption, meaning that the historic state police powers are not to be superseded unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009).
When Congress writes no preemption clause, a court infers its intent, and a state law is impliedly preempted in two ways: conflict preemption and field preemption. Both run against a presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state power.
Implied preemption is what you reach for when Congress did not write a preemption clause, but federal law still has to win because the Supremacy Clause makes it the supreme law of the land. Without explicit language, a court has to infer Congress's intent, and there are two recognized ways a state law gets impliedly preempted.
- 1Conflict, sometimes called obstacle preemption. A state law is preempted if it interferes with achieving a federal objective, either by commanding conduct that the federal rule forbids, or by forbidding conduct the federal rule is designed to foster. The classic illustration is a state suspending the driver's license of someone who did not pay an auto-accident judgment even after that debt was wiped out in bankruptcy; that interfered with the federal bankruptcy goal of a fresh start, so it was preempted.
- 2Field preemption. A state law is preempted if Congress intended to occupy the entire field, leaving no room for any state regulation. To find that intent, courts look at the federal scheme and often find it where the federal regulation is comprehensive or where Congress created a federal agency to oversee the field.
Now overlay one more rule that cuts the other way. In all preemption cases, and especially where the state is regulating a field traditionally within its police power, like health, safety, or welfare, there is a presumption against preemption. The historic state police powers are not superseded unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. So implied preemption is a two-route inquiry, conflict or field, run against a thumb on the scale for the states in their traditional domains.
Here is the key point students miss: conflict preemption applies even if the state passed its law for a perfectly valid purpose, not to sabotage the federal government. Good intentions do not save a state law that stands as an obstacle to the federal objective.
Two routes when there is no express clause: conflict (the state law obstructs a federal objective, by commanding what federal law forbids or forbidding what federal law fosters) and field (Congress meant to occupy the whole field, shown by a comprehensive scheme or an overseeing agency).
no clause, so infer intent, conflict or field.
The fact that never saves a state law: it was passed for a valid local purpose; obstacle preemption applies anyway.
The counterweight: in traditional state areas (health, safety, welfare) there is a presumption against preemption, overcome only by Congress's clear and manifest purpose.
A federal program sets a goal of moving people quickly out of debt, and a state, for the entirely legitimate reason of protecting accident victims, keeps a rule that suspends the license of anyone who has not paid an accident judgment, even after a federal proceeding has formally wiped that debt out. A driver whose debt was discharged but whose license was suspended challenges the state rule.
Now change the facts to a field case: suppose Congress builds a comprehensive scheme regulating an industry and creates a federal agency to oversee every part of it, and a state then adds its own licensing rules for the same industry. The comprehensiveness of the scheme and the overseeing agency point to Congress occupying the field, so the state licensing rule may be field-preempted even without any direct conflict.
A 'No' resting on the state having a valid local purpose and not intending to frustrate the federal government.
A state law that obstructs a federal objective is impliedly preempted even when enacted for a valid purpose.An option requiring an express clause before any preemption, or saying that without explicit language the state law automatically survives.
Implied preemption operates precisely where there is no express clause, inferring intent from conflict or field occupation.An option demanding a literal command-versus-command collision and ignoring obstacle and field preemption.
Conflict includes obstructing a federal objective, and field preemption requires no specific conflict at all.An absolute saying ANY state law in a federally regulated area is preempted, or that a police-power law can NEVER be preempted.
Preemption requires conflict or field occupation, and in traditional state fields a presumption against preemption applies, overcome only by clear and manifest congressional purpose.A 'Yes' that reaches the right outcome but assigns the wrong route, explaining a field case as a direct conflict or a conflict case as field occupation.
Name the route that fits the facts, obstacle to a federal objective versus intent to occupy the field.the stem gives you a federal law with no express preemption clause and a state law on the same subject, and asks whether the state law survives.
With no clause, you are in implied preemption, and you run two routes.
Conflict: does the state law command what the federal rule forbids, forbid what the federal rule fosters, or otherwise stand as an obstacle to a federal objective?
If yes, it is preempted, and a valid local purpose does not save it.
Field: do the facts show Congress meant to occupy the entire field, signaled by a comprehensive scheme or an overseeing federal agency?
If yes, even a non-conflicting state law can fall.
Then check the counterweight: if the state is regulating a traditional police-power field like health, safety, or welfare, apply the presumption against preemption, which yields only to Congress's clear and manifest purpose.
- ×demand an express clause
- ×save the law on good-purpose grounds
- ×preempt every state law in the area without regard to the presumption
A federal law is designed to give people who go through a federal debt-relief proceeding a fresh financial start free of their discharged debts. A state, seeking to protect accident victims, maintains a rule that suspends the driver's license of anyone who has not paid an accident judgment against them, and the state applies that rule even to drivers whose judgment debts were wiped out in the federal proceeding. A driver whose debt was discharged but whose license was suspended challenges the state rule, and the federal law contains no clause addressing state regulation.
Under existing precedent, is the state rule preempted as applied to the driver?
Congress enacts a comprehensive scheme regulating a category of commercial activity and creates a federal agency with authority to oversee every aspect of that activity, leaving no gaps in the federal coverage. The statute says nothing about whether states may regulate. A state then adopts its own licensing requirements for the same commercial activity. A business challenges the state licensing requirements as preempted, even though the state requirements do not directly contradict any specific federal command.
Under existing precedent, may the state licensing requirements be preempted on these facts?
A federal rule is designed to encourage a particular safety practice among certain manufacturers and affirmatively fosters that conduct. A state enacts a law that forbids manufacturers from engaging in the very practice the federal rule is designed to foster. A manufacturer caught between the two challenges the state law, and the federal rule contains no language addressing state regulation.
Under existing precedent, is the state law preempted?
A state, exercising its traditional power over public health and safety, enacts a regulation governing a local hazard within its borders. A federal statute touches the same general subject but is not comprehensive, creates no overseeing agency, and does not require or forbid anything the state regulation requires or forbids. A company subject to the state regulation argues it is preempted simply because the subject overlaps with federal law, and a court must decide whether the historic state power yields.
Under existing precedent, is the state regulation preempted on these facts?
A federal law sets a specific objective for handling a class of disputes and is structured to achieve that objective efficiently. A state enacts a procedure that, while adopted to serve the state's own legitimate interest, makes it substantially harder to achieve the federal objective in those disputes. The federal law contains no clause addressing state regulation, and the state procedure does not literally command anything the federal law forbids. A party challenges the state procedure as an obstacle to the federal objective.
Under existing precedent, is the state procedure preempted?