Preemption - Constitutional

Supremacy Clause: Acrticle VI = Constitution is Supreme Law of the Land

Express preemption – federal law expressly preempts state or local law

1. Real question is one of intent – whether Congress intended to preempt or not certain actions

Implied preemption – clear congressional intent to preempt state or local law

1. Conflicts preemption – compliance with both is physical impossibility

   1. Obstacle preemption as a variant: state law stands as an obstacle

      1. Determine what intent of federal law is

      2. Figure out wheter state law interferes with that objective, which happens if

         1. Compliance is physically impossible; or

         2. The state statute frustrates a federal objective

2. Field Preemption – scheme of federal law is so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for states to supplement it

   1. The nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion (e.g. national security); or

   2. Congress has unmistakably so ordained by “making federal regulation so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Cognress left no room for the State to supplement it”

Rules

1. Strong presumption against preemption (particularly field)

2. Strong presumption necessary to avoid creating a regulatory vacuum

3. Federalism concerns – it’s important to respect states so we err in their favor

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly(2000)- Tobacco Co believes that the AG of Massachusetts regulations governing advertising and sale of tobacco was preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling Advertising Act – prescribes mandatory health warnings for cigarette packaging and advertisisng and the regulations violated 1st and 14th amendments.

1. Held: Federal law preempts Massachussettes regulation

2. Justice O’Connor’s analysis:

   1. Recognizes a presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state authority

   2. Examines congressional intent

      1. Changes in the language of the preemption provision over time

      2. There’s a specific statement in the federal statute regarding preemption, and that statement is broader than the old one

      3. It is impossible to maintain a distinction between state regulation of location of advertising, as opposed to content

3. Dissent

   1. Stevens

   2. Three purposes of the federal statute: (1) inform public about hazards of smoking; (2) ensure that the public not be confused by conflicting labels; (3) avoid costs to business from having to comply with multiple labeling regimes

      1. None of these purposes are threatened by the state regulation

Morales v. Trans-World Airline (1991) - Federal statute that no state shall have a law relating to rates, routes, or services of any carrier. State passes a law regulation advertising of prices for air carriers.

1. Held: State regulation would undo federal deregulation; preempted

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Pau (1963)- Federal law has no oil requirement for maturity. CA law prohibites the transporation/sale in CA of immature avocados (less than 8% oil)

1. Held: No conflict, no preemption

   1. Two ways to see the purpose of the federal rule:

      1. As a minimum requirement which California can exceed and set a higher standard if it wants; or

      2. As the standard which determines whether avocados can...