Con Law--4

Front 1

State power and federal-regarding limitations upon it

Front 2

Generally, a state law is preempted by a federal law under the Supremacy Clause if …

Back 2

Generally, a state law is preempted by a federal law under the Supremacy Clause if Congress chooses regulate the same activity where a State has concurrent jdx.

Front 3

How did Lorillard v. Reilly [EXPRESS preemption] demonstrate Express Preemption? Facts: 1. Massachusetts state regulations governing the advertising and promotion of tobacco products were challenged as preempted by federal regulation governing the advertising and promotion of cigarettes.

Back 3

2. A state’s regulation under its police powers is not to be preempted UNLESS Congress clearly intended to do just that where it has concurrent control. a. Express preemption is usually fairly easy to determine. You have statutory language and just need to determine Congress’s intent to preempt state law. i. Example: there shall not be additional statements on cigarette packages beyond those provided by this Act; and no State regulation in the form of a requirement or prohibition shall be imposed under State law in terms of advertising or promotion of cigarettes whose packages are labeled to conform w/ the provisions of the Act. b. A state law may not be preempted if its regulation is not narrowed to the specific regulation of Congress—e.g. cigarette advertising—but is broader in its regulation—ban all sorts of advertisement w/in a thousand feet of school.

Front 4

How did Florida Lime & Avocado Growers [IMPLIED preemption: conflicts preemption] demonstrate Implied Preemption? Facts: 1. A Florida avocado producer challenged the constitutionality of a California statute that was more restrictive than federal regulations.

Back 4

2. If the federal government and state government have dual standards that are different from each other and conflict w/ each other b/c only one of them could be met—being a physical impossibility to meet both, the federal standard will PREVAIL and preempt the state law. a. Often times, the Court will have to decide whether Congress would have implicitly wanted to preempt the state law. This implication results when Congress did not speak to the issue. b. Further, when the state standard is more restrictive than the federal standard, and both standards may be satisfied, since they are not in conflict, the state standard may still operate. i. The federal government would be setting a floor and NOT a ceiling. 1. At the very minimum, the federal standard would have to be met. ii. An example of where there would be a conflict b/w state and federal law, would be if CA wanted to keep oil content down and the federal government wanted to keep oil content up.

Front 5

How did Pacific Gas & Electric Demonstrate: [Preemption b/c state law impedes achievement of federal objective] Facts: 1. State law, which effectively placed a moratorium on construction of new nuclear power plants within the state, was not preempted by federal law that governed the regulation of safety aspects concerning nuclear power plants.

Back 5

2. If a state law interfered w/ a federal goal, the state law would be preempted in order to achieve that goal. a. However, if the federal goal is to have efficient nuclear power plants by providing regulations and safety standards, a state may slow or stop building plants for economic reasons. i. The federal objective is not to build nuclear plants at all costs. 1. There may have to be a slowing down of plants for economic sense. ii. There is no conflict b/w state law and federal objective.

Front 6

Example a. Fed label: “smoking is dangerous to your health”. Assume there is no explicit authority from Congress that this is the only label that should be in the box, what about other state laws? ii. North Ca (NC) law adds to fed: “but scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer is inconclusive” 1. NC says that when these ciggs are sold, this caveat must be added. Is this NC statute preempted?

Back 6

a. There is field preemption b/c the federal law is solely in charge of labeling. b. It may be argued that there is a need for uniform packaging b/c otherwise it would be too expensive and different labels to different states. c. The state law impedes the federal purpose of trying to discourage people from smoking.

Front 7

Arguing against CA labeling---- Example a. Fed label: “smoking is dangerous to your health” b. CA: fed + “smoking causes colon cancer”

Back 7

1. Impedes interstate commerce b/c another label has to be included.

Front 8

Arguing in favor of CA labeling---- Example a. Fed label: “smoking is dangerous to your health” b. CA: fed + “smoking causes colon cancer”

Back 8

1. The CA law is consistent w/ and more particular to the federal law; therefore, not preempted b/c the federal law is a floor and NOT a ceiling on the part of the federal purpose.

Front 9

CA: exclusive (does not include fed label/statement)--Preemption?? --- Example a. Fed label: “smoking is dangerous to your health”. Assume there is no explicit authority from Congress that this is the only label that should be in the box, what about other state laws? ii. North Ca (NC) law adds to fed: “but scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer is inconclusive” 1. NC says that when these ciggs are sold, this caveat must be added. Is this NC statute preempted?

Back 9

i. A clear case of conflict preemption. 1. If when left w/ no choice of being able to satisfy the federal law or the state law, the state law will be preempted and the federal will prevail.

Front 10

How does Hines v. Davidowitz demonstrate: [Preemption b/c fed law Occupies the Field] (“Penn, immigration”) Facts: 1. State alien registration law was challenged on the ground that the federal alien registration law occupied the field and therefore preempted the state law.

Back 10

2. Even when a state law does not conflict w/ the federal law, and both may be met—no conflict preemption, as well as not impeded the federal purpose, a state law can still be preempted b/c the Court has noted that Congress has exclusive control over this area, and has occupied this area by passing a federal law. a. A state law cannot compliment the federal law. 3. Raiche: CA regulation of medicinal MJ seems to impede the federal purpose of preventing the selling of MJ.

Front 11

Dormant Commerce Clause 1. The Court has invented this doctrine for __???___ a. The Court holds that Congress’s power over commerce is ___???___. b. A state law is preempted that ___???___ even when Congress has ___???___ dealing w/ that issue.

Back 11

Dormant Commerce Clause 1. The Court has invented this doctrine for policy reasons a. The Court holds that Congress’s power over commerce is plenary. b. A state law is preempted that impedes or burdens interstate commerce even when Congress has NOT passed a law dealing w/ that issue.