Constitutional Law

Federal Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution, also known as the "Supremacy Clause," establishes the concept of legal supremacy for federal law. Under this doctrine, states are strictly prohibited from enacting laws that directly conflict with federal law, states cannot interfere with the authorized actions of the federal government and states cannot pursue actions that are exclusive to the federal government. As written, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. U.S. Const., art. VI

Case Law

Over the years, the Supreme Court has addressed numerous questions regarding just how far the supremacy clause extends. From the beginning, it was understood that individual States cannot impede, burden or control the laws or actions of the Federal Government. Over time, more specific areas of law were addressed, wherein it was further clarified that Federal Law had supremacy over the States.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816); Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

• The United States Supreme Court has the final authority to review State court decision that involve federal law or federal issues and therefore can overrule State court decisions as well.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

• Issues of Interstate Commerce

Ableman v. Booth (1859)

• State courts decisions cannot contradict or nullify existing Federal court decisions that exist on that issue.

Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956)

• When Federal interest into a specific area of law is sufficiently dominant (such as sedition laws), State laws on that same issue are superseded

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

• Neither State law nor State officials have the authority to reject the enforcement of established Federal law, including the decisions of Federal courts. (In this case, Arkansas attempted to reject the earlier desegregation ruling in the case Brown v. Board of Education.

Edgar v. MITE Corp. (1982)

• Where a valid State statute and a valid Federal statute conflict, the State statute is void so long as:
  • It is impossible to comply with both the State and Federal laws together; and/or
  • The State law is an obstacle to Congress's execution of its purpose/objectives.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)

• The Federal Government has exclusive authority in determining the qualifications for member of the US Congress. States cannot independently create their own qualifications for candidates running for office in their State (such as creating term limits).

Exclusive Powers of the Fifty States

Just like the Federal Government maintains its own set of exclusive powers under the United States Constitution, so too do the 50 individual states. A common understanding of where these State rights come from starts with the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U.S. Const. amend. X

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution briefly establishes the concept that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government or prohibited to the States are then outright reserved to the States and the people. However, the use of such broad language has naturally left many questions over time regarding what specific powers are actually left to the States and what powers are not already delegated to the Federal Government?

Case Law

Alden v. Maine (1999)

• Congress cannot use its Article I powers to circumvent State sovereign immunity which prevents States from being sued by private parties within their own State courts.

Concurrent Powers Shared Between Federal and State Governments

In addition to each level of government having their own powers, there are also some powers that both levels of government have the authority to use. However, it is important to keep in mind that whenever state and federal government actions overlap, there is a very good chance that the Federal Government will override the states due to the Supremacy Clause.

Tax and Spend Powers

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Although States have the ability to impose taxes within their borders, a State cannot directly tax or regulate the federal government or its instrumentalities. This is because such actions can improperly limit the powers and duties of the Federal Government.

Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury (1989)

• A State's implementation of tax laws cannot single out and discriminate the Federal Government, its employees or those who deal with the Federal Government.

Commerce Powers - A Balancing Test 

The current standard used to determine whether a State has exceeded its Commerce Powers is based on a Balancing Test. First, the Court must determination (1) whether the State's statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and (2) whether the State statute's effect on interstate commerce is only incidental. If these two elements are true, then the analysis moves on to a balancing test to determine whether the burden being imposed on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to its putative local benefits, and whether a lesser impactful statutory framework could achieve the same local interests of the State. In its own language, the Supreme Court stated the following in its Opinion:

Where the statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970).

Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)

• States cannot prohibit the sale of goods being sold out-of-state for a price that is lower than they are being sold in-state.

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)

• States cannot prohibit the importation of out-of-state waste while at the same time allow for the transfer and dumping of waste created within its own borders.

Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979)

• State's cannot enact legislation that discriminates and imposes a burden on out-of-state goods/interests while at the same time ignoring those same in-state goods/interests. This improperly discriminates against other States, and the local interests do not outweigh the impact on interstate commerce.