{ "id": "R45825", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R45825", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R45825", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2023-06-19T04:03:18.235218", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R45825_3_2023-05-18", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45825/3", "sha1": "770851807b2b98881aeaf7ef5d553fe4140ce6ec", "filename": "files/2023-05-18_R45825_770851807b2b98881aeaf7ef5d553fe4140ce6ec.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2023-05-18_R45825_770851807b2b98881aeaf7ef5d553fe4140ce6ec.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer", "date": "2023-05-18" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 602675, "date": "2019-07-23", "retrieved": "2019-07-24T22:21:12.810905", "title": "Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer", "summary": "The Constitution\u2019s Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is \u201cthe supreme Law of the Land\u201d notwithstanding any state law to the contrary. This language is the foundation for the doctrine of federal preemption, according to which federal law supersedes conflicting state laws. The Supreme Court has identified two general ways in which federal law can preempt state law. First, federal law can expressly preempt state law when a federal statute or regulation contains explicit preemptive language. Second, federal law can impliedly preempt state law when Congress\u2019s preemptive intent is implicit in the relevant federal law\u2019s structure and purpose.\nThis report begins with an overview of certain general preemption principles. In both express and implied preemption cases, the Supreme Court has made clear that Congress\u2019s purpose is the \u201cultimate touchstone\u201d of its statutory analysis. The Court\u2019s analysis of Congress\u2019s purpose has at times been informed by a canon of statutory construction known as the \u201cpresumption against preemption,\u201d which instructs that federal law should not be read as preempting state law \u201cunless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.\u201d However, the Court has recently applied the presumption somewhat inconsistently, raising questions about its current scope and effect. Moreover, in 2016, the Court held that the presumption no longer applies in express preemption cases.\nAfter reviewing these general themes in the Supreme Court\u2019s preemption jurisprudence, the report turns to the Court\u2019s express preemption case law. In this section, the report analyzes how the Court has interpreted federal statutes that preempt (1) state laws \u201crelated to\u201d certain subjects, (2) state laws concerning certain subjects \u201ccovered\u201d by federal laws and regulations, (3) state requirements that are \u201cin addition to, or different than\u201d federal requirements, and (4) state \u201crequirements,\u201d \u201claws,\u201d \u201cregulations,\u201d and \u201cstandards.\u201d While preemption decisions depend heavily on the details of particular statutory schemes, the Court has assigned some of these phrases specific meanings even when they have appeared in different statutory contexts.\nFinally, the report reviews illustrative examples of the Court\u2019s implied preemption decisions. In these cases, the Court has identified two subcategories of implied preemption: \u201cfield preemption\u201d and \u201cconflict preemption.\u201d Field preemption occurs when a pervasive scheme of federal regulation implicitly precludes supplementary state regulation, or where states attempt to regulate a field where there is clearly a dominant federal interest. Applying these principles, the Court has held that federal law occupies a number of regulatory fields, including alien registration, nuclear safety regulation, and the regulation of locomotive equipment.\nIn contrast, conflict preemption occurs when simultaneous compliance with both federal and state regulations is impossible (\u201cimpossibility preemption\u201d), or when state law poses an obstacle to the accomplishment of federal goals (\u201cobstacle preemption\u201d). The Court has extended the scope of impossibility preemption in two recent decisions, holding that compliance with both federal and state law can be \u201cimpossible\u201d even when a regulated party can (1) petition the federal government for permission to comply with state law, or (2) avoid violations of the law by refraining from selling a regulated product altogether. In its obstacle preemption decisions, the Court has concluded that state law can interfere with federal goals by frustrating Congress\u2019s intent to adopt a uniform system of federal regulation, conflicting with Congress\u2019s goal of establishing a regulatory \u201cceiling\u201d for certain products or activities, or by impeding the vindication of a federal right.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45825", "sha1": "faf759a1321be600b5c9bf274b154b54a71aa39a", "filename": "files/20190723_R45825_faf759a1321be600b5c9bf274b154b54a71aa39a.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45825_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190723_R45825_images_c060589bd1ac63921af9b4a4c777558a7bbacb49.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45825", "sha1": "1014114d2e3a8ebe3f6c0dc26eef33d335dada7e", "filename": "files/20190723_R45825_1014114d2e3a8ebe3f6c0dc26eef33d335dada7e.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Domestic Social Policy", "Legislative Process" ] }