Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause, codified in Article VI, Clause 2 of the , declares that "This , and the Laws of the which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the , shall be the supreme ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." This provision establishes as paramount over conflicting state law, requiring state judicial officers to prioritize constitutional federal enactments and treaties while nullifying inconsistent state measures. Originating as a direct response to the disunity under the , where states frequently ignored national directives and treaties, the Supremacy Clause reinforces national authority within the federal system, ensuring that valid exercises of enumerated federal powers prevail without state interference. It embodies a principle of legal hierarchy that prevents of governance, promoting uniformity in areas like , treaties, and national defense where federal involvement is constitutionally authorized. The clause's requirement that federal laws be "made in Pursuance" thereof underscores that supremacy applies only to legislation within Congress's delegated powers, theoretically constraining overreach though interpretations have varied. Central to landmark jurisprudence, the Supremacy Clause underpinned decisions such as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where the Supreme Court struck down a state tax on the national bank as an unconstitutional impediment to federal operations, affirming that "the government of the United States, though limited in its powers, is supreme." Subsequent cases, including Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), expanded its application to interstate commerce regulation, preempting state monopolies and solidifying federal dominance in economic matters. Controversies persist over its scope, particularly in preemption doctrines where expansive federal regulations displace state policies, raising debates about encroachments on state sovereignty absent clear congressional intent or constitutional basis.

Constitutional Text and Original Understanding

Text of the Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause appears in Article VI, Clause 2 of the , which reads: "This , and the Laws of the which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the , shall be the supreme ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The clause designates the Constitution, federal laws enacted in pursuance of its authority, and treaties executed under federal authority as comprising the supreme law of the land, thereby establishing them as the paramount rule for judicial decision-making over inconsistent state measures. The limitation "in Pursuance thereof" confines supremacy to federal laws that conform to constitutional delegation and bounds, excluding those exceeding enumerated powers or procedural requirements. It further directs that judges in every must adhere to this supreme law, with the notwithstanding proviso explicitly nullifying any conflicting elements in constitutions or statutes as operative rules. Article VI commences with Clause 1's affirmation of debts and engagements predating the Constitution's adoption, proceeds to the supremacy declaration in Clause 2 to enforce national uniformity, and ends with Clause 3's oath mandates for and officers alongside the bar on religious qualifications for .

Framers' Intent and Response to Confederation Weaknesses

Under the , ratified in 1777 and effective from 1781, the national government lacked coercive authority over states, leading to frequent non-compliance with congressional requisitions for revenue and other measures. States often ignored these calls, contributing to federal insolvency; for instance, by 1786, Congress had received only a fraction of requested funds, exacerbating debt from the . Interstate commerce disputes intensified these weaknesses, as states imposed retaliatory tariffs and barriers—such as New York's duties on imports—violating the Articles' implicit free-trade expectations and prompting the Annapolis Convention of September 1786 to urge reforms for uniform regulation. Additionally, several states, including in May 1786, emitted large quantities of , which depreciated rapidly and undermined efforts to establish federal credit through loans, as creditors feared state laws forcing acceptance at . At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates addressed these failures by incorporating a supremacy provision rooted in the , presented by on May 29, which sought a national government with authority overriding state actions in specified domains. James Madison's notes from the proceedings record framers' explicit recognition that the Articles' absence of supremacy enabled states to nullify congressional resolutions through local courts and legislatures, necessitating a clause declaring the , federal laws "made in pursuance thereof," and treaties as "the supreme Law of the Land." On August 23, 1787, the clause passed without division after debates contrasting it with the rejected idea of a direct congressional over state laws, opting instead for judicial enforcement to bind state judges and officials under oath. This formulation reflected the framers' intent to remedy confederation-era encroachments while preserving federalism: supremacy extended only to laws enacted pursuant to Congress's enumerated powers, avoiding blanket federal dominance and requiring alignment with constitutional limits to trigger preemption of conflicting state measures. Madison emphasized in convention records that without such targeted supremacy, states would continue favoring parochial interests, as seen in commerce and currency disputes, but the "pursuance" qualifier ensured federal actions remained tethered to delegated authority rather than implying inherent plenary power. Thus, the clause aimed to enable reliable execution of national policies—like requisitions and trade regulation—without vesting unchecked supremacy, directly countering the voluntary, unenforceable compact of the Articles.

Ratification Debates and Early Implementation

Federalist Defenses and Anti-Federalist Objections

Federalists, led by and , defended the Supremacy Clause during the 1787–1788 ratification debates as indispensable for a functional national government, arguing it merely codified the inherent superiority of federal laws within their enumerated sphere without abolishing state authority. In Federalist No. 33, published January 2, 1788, Hamilton contended that "a , by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy" and that the clause "declares a truth which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government," emphasizing it enabled enforcement of federal powers like taxation without permitting arbitrary federal overreach into state domains. He further assured that federal laws conflicting with state constitutions would be invalid unless pursuant to delegated powers, preserving state sovereignty in non-federal matters. Madison reinforced this in Federalist No. 44, arguing the clause prevented destructive state interpositions, such as overriding federal authority to coin , which under the had led to competing state emissions and economic chaos. He maintained that without supremacy, "the authority of the proposed over the existing would be as complete as if it were an entire new system," but limited to execution of granted powers, rejecting any notion of state veto as incompatible with . Anti-Federalists countered that the Supremacy Clause, paired with expansive clauses like necessary and proper, risked consolidating power in the government, eroding state independence and fostering tyranny akin to British rule. In Brutus I, published October 18, 1787, the pseudonymous author warned that judges bound by the clause "in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding," enabling laws to supersede state constitutions indiscriminately and transform the union into a centralized . Critics like those in conventions feared it would compel state officials to enforce edicts intrusive into local affairs, demanding explicit limits via a to confine scope and affirm state primacy in reserved areas. These objections prompted Federalist concessions, culminating in ratification pledges for amendments; the Tenth Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, declared "The powers not delegated to the by the , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," addressing concerns by clarifying supremacy applied only to enumerated federal powers, not implying unlimited national authority.

Binding Oath on State Judges and Officials

Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. mandates that "all executive and judicial Officers... of the several States" take an oath or affirmation to support the , directly linking state officials to the Supremacy Clause's mandate that federal law prevails over conflicting state enactments. This personal commitment obligates state judges to apply the , federal statutes, and treaties as the supreme law in , preempting inconsistent state provisions without reliance on external . The clause's placement immediately following the Supremacy Clause during the Constitutional Convention's final drafting emphasized its function as a self-executing restraint on state autonomy, remedying the Articles of Confederation's lack of binding authority over state judiciaries. During ratification debates, proponents argued the ensured voluntary alignment of state institutions with national authority, forestalling disloyalty without military coercion. In Virginia's 1788 convention, Federalists like defended Article VI provisions, including the , as essential safeguards against state encroachments that had undermined , while conceded its role in promoting uniform constitutional fidelity amid fears of centralized power. Post-ratification, states integrated federal oaths into their frameworks; for instance, Virginia's officials swore allegiance to the U.S. Constitution alongside state duties, reflecting broad acceptance of supremacy obligations. Empirical evidence of early compliance includes the First Congress's 1789 adoption of a uniform —"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the "—mirrored in state practices, with records showing negligible judicial nullification attempts prior to 1800. This period's stability, absent widespread state court defiance of federal mandates like early tax collections or treaty enforcement, underscores the 's causal efficacy in fostering adherence through personal accountability rather than litigation. The accompanying "no religious Test" prohibition bars sectarian qualifications for federal offices but contextualizes the oath's universality, permitting affirmations for conscientious objectors like and ensuring loyalty derives from rational constitutional assent, not faith-based vows. This design averted religious factionalism in state-federal relations, enabling diverse officials to bind themselves equivalently to supremacy without denominational exclusion.

Foundational Judicial Interpretations

Early Supreme Court Cases Establishing Federal Supremacy

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress possessed implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to charter the Second Bank of the United States as a means to execute its enumerated powers to tax, borrow, and regulate commerce, thereby establishing the federal government's authority to create national institutions without explicit constitutional enumeration. The Court further held that Maryland's tax on the bank's Baltimore branch violated the Supremacy Clause, as states lack authority to impede or destroy federal operations through taxation, with Chief Justice John Marshall declaring that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy" and affirming that federal law preempts conflicting state measures. This decision underscored the Clause's role in shielding federal entities from state interference, while Marshall emphasized that implied powers must serve legitimate ends within enumerated authorities, rejecting boundless federal expansion. The ruling in McCulloch synergized the with the , enabling to employ appropriate means for constitutional ends without state veto, but Marshall's opinion delimited this by requiring means to be "plainly adapted" and not prohibited by the , thus preserving limits amid early debates over national banking's constitutionality. No dissents were recorded, reflecting broad judicial consensus on core supremacy principles, though the narrow focus on the bank's legitimacy avoided broader endorsements of unchecked federal discretion. Five years later, in (1824), the Court invalidated a steamboat grant under the Supremacy Clause, holding that a federal license issued pursuant to the 1793 Act regulating coastal trade preempted the state law as it conflicted with congressional authority over interstate . Marshall's majority opinion defined "commerce" broadly to encompass navigation between states, affirming exclusive federal jurisdiction over interstate economic activities while clarifying that the empowers regulation of transactions crossing state lines, without extending to purely intrastate matters. This established that state regulations yielding practical obstructions to federal commerce uniformity are void, reinforcing supremacy as a mechanism to prevent fragmented state barriers to national economic integration. Gibbons highlighted synergies between the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses, enabling of state monopolies that hinder interstate flow, yet Marshall's reasoning tied authority to the Clause's text—focusing on "among the several states"—to avoid implying , with the decision's emphasis on conflict resolution preserving state roles in local affairs absent federal action. Justice William Johnson concurred, but the holding's narrow delineation of scope underscored judicial caution against overreading federal dominance, aligning with originalist constraints on supremacy applications.

Development of Preemption Principles

The preemption doctrine under the Supremacy Clause establishes when displaces inconsistent state law, categorized into express and implied forms to reflect congressional intent versus judicial inference. Express preemption requires explicit statutory language declaring federal exclusivity, as when states that state laws on a subject are nullified or limited. This approach, evident in New Deal-era labor statutes like the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which included provisions assigning primary to federal boards and restricting state interference in processes, prioritizes clear textual directives over ambiguity. Implied preemption divides into field and conflict subtypes, inferred from the structure and objectives of federal enactments absent explicit terms. Field preemption holds that a federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive or entails a framework demanding national uniformity—such as in areas implicating interstate —that it implicitly occupies the entire domain, foreclosing supplementary regulation. Conflict preemption, in turn, invalidates law where dual compliance proves physically impossible or where the state measure obstructs the full implementation of federal aims, determined through analysis of statutory text and purpose. The Supreme Court in Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. (1947) introduced a against preemption for matters within traditional powers, such as local warehousing regulations not directly addressed by , requiring "clear and manifest" congressional purpose to override state authority and thereby preserving federalism's balance. This canon, applied to the United States Warehouse Act, held that federal licensing did not fully supplant state rules on intrastate grain storage absent comprehensive displacement intent. Originalist and textualist scholars critique expansive implied preemption—especially variants—as straying from the Supremacy Clause's original demand for demonstrable textual , favoring instead strict adherence to statutory language over judicial purposivism or weighing that risks judicial overreach into legislative prerogatives. They argue that true preemption demands of federal law's plain meaning clashing with state rules, not inferred frustrations of unexpressed goals, to avoid eroding state sovereignty without democratic warrant.

Application to Treaties and Federal Obligations

Supremacy of Treaties as Law of the Land

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2, designates all treaties made under the authority of the United States as part of the "supreme ," obligating state judges and officials to uphold them over conflicting state laws or constitutions. This elevation addressed chronic enforcement failures under the , where states routinely violated federal treaties, including the 1783 Treaty of Paris's requirements to recover Loyalist property and British pre-war debts, resulting in Britain's refusal to evacuate western forts and heightened foreign policy vulnerabilities. Early Supreme Court rulings confirmed treaties' direct supremacy. In Ware v. Hylton (1796), the Court invalidated Virginia statutes sequestering British debts during the Revolution, ruling that the superseded such state measures, as treaties constitute binding enforceable in courts. This established judicial precedence for treaty enforcement without requiring implementing legislation if the treaty provisions are self-executing—those that "operate of themselves" to confer rights or impose duties domestically. The self-executing distinction governs judicial application: self-executing treaties, like certain reciprocal rights provisions in early commercial agreements, bind courts directly, while non-self-executing ones necessitate congressional statutes for domestic effect. In Missouri v. Holland (1920), the Court upheld a treaty-implementing statute regulating migratory birds, preempting state authority under the Tenth Amendment, as valid treaties expand federal regulatory reach into areas otherwise reserved to states, though subject to constitutional limits such as protecting individual rights or state boundaries. Such rulings underscore treaties' role in enabling federal obligations, with courts tasked to nullify state interferences to preserve international commitments.

Conflicts with State Law in Treaty Enforcement

The Supremacy Clause establishes treaties as "the supreme Law of the Land," enabling them to preempt conflicting state laws to ensure uniform national compliance with international obligations. In Ware v. Hylton (1796), the Supreme Court addressed whether the Treaty of Paris (1783), which required recovery of pre-war debts owed to British creditors, overrode Virginia statutes enacted during the Revolution that sequestered and confiscated such debts. The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Jay, ruled 4-1 that the treaty superseded the state laws, as the Supremacy Clause rendered treaties binding on states and their courts regardless of contrary local enactments. This decision affirmed federal courts' authority to invalidate state measures violating treaties, prioritizing national treaty commitments over state wartime policies. Subsequent jurisprudence clarified limits on treaty preemption, particularly distinguishing self-executing treaties—those directly enforceable in domestic courts—from non-self-executing ones requiring legislative implementation. In (2008), the Court examined whether provisions of the (1969) and the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention, as interpreted by an ruling, automatically required courts to reconsider death sentences for foreign nationals denied consular notification. By a 6-3 vote, ' majority opinion held these treaties non-self-executing, lacking the requisite intent for direct judicial enforcement without congressional action, thus permitting to proceed without federal override. The decision rejected President George W. Bush's memorandum directing state compliance, emphasizing that the executive cannot unilaterally enforce non-self-executing treaties against states under the Supremacy Clause. Originalist interpretations underscore these boundaries, arguing that the Framers intended treaty supremacy to bind states only through self-executing provisions or enacted statutes, preventing executive circumvention of congressional treaty-making powers under Article II, Section 2. Scholars aligned with originalism, such as those analyzing Medellín, contend this framework maintains separation of powers and federalism by requiring legislative buy-in for domestic effects, countering expansive views that might allow the President to dominate foreign policy implementation at states' expense. In contrast, proponents of broader treaty efficacy advocate for presumptive self-execution to fulfill international commitments, though the Court has resisted this to avoid judicial overreach into political branches' domains. These tensions highlight the Clause's role in balancing uniform treaty enforcement with structural limits on federal authority over states.

Evolution in Federalism Doctrine

19th-Century Expansions and Nullification Challenges

In the of 1832, enacted an ordinance on November 24 declaring the federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within its borders, asserting a state's right to invalidate unconstitutional federal laws as a remedy short of . President Andrew Jackson responded with his Proclamation to the People of on December 10, 1832, invoking the to affirm that the and federal laws made pursuant thereto constitute the supreme , binding on states and rendering nullification doctrines incompatible with the Union's structure. Jackson emphasized that the clause established federal authority without negating state sovereignty in areas of , warning that nullification invited disunion while preserving the . The crisis escalated with South Carolina's threats of , prompting to pass the Force Bill on March 2, 1833, authorizing military enforcement of federal , though a concurrent tariff compromise reduced rates and defused immediate tensions without judicial resolution. Jackson's solidified the Supremacy Clause's role in rejecting unilateral state vetoes over federal enactments, framing nullification not as a constitutional check but as an extralegal challenge that undermined the oath-bound obligation of state officials to uphold . This episode highlighted the clause's function in maintaining amid economic disputes, yet it fueled broader secessionist rhetoric in Southern states, portraying federal tariff policies as coercive overreach despite their revenue purposes. By the 1850s, tensions over slavery enforcement tested the clause amid expanding obligations under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. In Ableman v. Booth, decided March 7, 1859, the addressed Wisconsin's legislative and judicial efforts to liberate Sherman Booth, arrested under authority for aiding a fugitive slave's escape, by issuing habeas corpus and nullifying his conviction. Taney, writing for the , ruled unanimously that states lack to review or obstruct judicial proceedings, as the Supremacy Clause mandates courts and officials to enforce law without interference, including deference to habeas determinations. The decision rejected Wisconsin's sovereignty claims over processes, affirming that any action obstructing the Fugitive Slave Act violated Article VI and Article III's judicial vesting, thereby preserving national uniformity in executing constitutional mandates like Article IV's fugitive rendition clause. Pre-Civil War applications of the Supremacy Clause thus centered on discrete conflicts over tariffs and enforcement rather than pervasive federal-state collisions, with historical records indicating fewer than a dozen major litigated disputes invoking the directly between 1830 and 1860, often resolved through political or executive assertion rather than wholesale federal dominance. These episodes underscored the 's preservative effect on the by subordinating state resistance to in enumerated domains, without eradicating dual sovereignty, though they presaged the sectional fractures culminating in 1861 . Nullification's doctrinal defeat and Ableman's reinforcement of non-interference principles demonstrated the 's utility in navigating federal expansion—such as through commerce regulation and territorial —while states retained substantial in local affairs.

20th-Century Shifts Toward Broader Federal Authority

The era marked a pivotal expansion of federal regulatory authority, particularly through interpretations of the that enabled Congress to enact sweeping economic and labor regulations, which in turn invoked the Supremacy Clause to preempt conflicting state laws. Decisions such as United States v. Darby (1941) upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act's and hour provisions against state challenges, establishing federal standards as supreme over state labor regulations where they conflicted, thereby facilitating national uniformity in interstate commerce-related matters. This shift, building on earlier precedents, allowed federal agencies to occupy regulatory fields, displacing state initiatives in areas like wage controls and industrial safety, as the Supremacy Clause required states to yield to valid federal enactments. In Perez v. Campbell (1971), the invalidated an statute that suspended driver's licenses and vehicle registrations until tort judgments from auto accidents were satisfied, ruling it conflicted with the federal Bankruptcy Act's discharge provisions under the Supremacy Clause. The Court emphasized that even incidental effects on federal policy, such as undermining bankruptcy's fresh-start principle, trigger preemption when state law frustrates congressional objectives, extending federal dominance into personal debt resolution traditionally handled at the state level. This decision exemplified express and conflict preemption, prioritizing uniform national bankruptcy policy over state creditor protections. The concept of field preemption further broadened federal authority in Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association (1992), where the Court struck down Illinois licensing and training requirements for hazardous waste handlers as encroaching on the Occupational Safety and Health Act's comprehensive framework. By occupying the field of occupational health standards for private workers engaged in interstate commerce, federal law implicitly barred state regulations addressing the same hazards, even if state measures appeared complementary, underscoring Congress's intent for singular national regulation to avoid a patchwork of inconsistent rules. Such expansions achieved uniformity in critical domains, as seen in the , which preempted state literacy tests, poll taxes, and other discriminatory practices through federal oversight mechanisms like preclearance, enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment against entrenched state barriers to minority voting. This federal intervention ensured consistent national standards for electoral integrity, overriding state laws that perpetuated racial disenfranchisement. However, critics, including federalism scholars, argue these interpretations distorted the Supremacy Clause to ratify overreach, effectively nullifying the Tenth Amendment's reservation of non-delegated powers to states and eroding dual sovereignty by converting enumerated federal limits into tools for expansive centralization. Originalist analyses contend this undermined the Framers' balance, as aggressive preemption in regulatory spheres like environmental and labor policy supplanted state experimentation without clear textual warrant, fostering dependency on federal uniformity at the expense of local autonomy.

Modern Applications and Disputes

Preemption in Regulatory and Economic Contexts

In regulatory contexts, the Supremacy Clause facilitates of state laws that conflict with agency regulations, particularly in areas like product safety and pharmaceuticals, to ensure uniform national standards essential for interstate commerce. statutes such as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act delegate authority to agencies like the NHTSA and FDA, whose rules can impliedly preempt state tort claims if compliance with both is impossible or obstructs objectives. This application prioritizes national regulatory coherence over fragmented state requirements, though it raises concerns about limiting state-level adaptations to regional needs. A key example is Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. (2000), where the Supreme Court held 5-4 that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, which permitted manufacturers to phase in passive restraints like airbags gradually, preempted a Kentucky tort claim alleging negligence for failing to install frontal airbags in a 1987 vehicle. The Court reasoned that state liability would frustrate NHTSA's deliberate choice of flexibility to encourage technological development, constituting implied conflict preemption despite the statute's savings clause for common-law claims. This decision underscored how federal regulatory intent can override state remedies, even absent express preemption language. Similarly, in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing (2011), the Court ruled 5-4 that FDA regulations requiring manufacturers to conform labels exactly to their brand-name counterparts preempted state failure-to-warn claims concerning metoclopramide's risks. Generic producers could not unilaterally strengthen warnings without FDA approval, rendering dual compliance impossible and thus triggering preemption under the impossibility doctrine. The ruling contrasted with Wyeth v. Levine (2009), which allowed state claims against brand-name drugs, highlighting stricter federal constraints on generics to promote market access. Post-1980s deregulation and expanded federal oversight in sectors like have spurred increased preemption litigation, with the frequently resolving conflicts between EPA rules and state standards under statutes like the Clean Air Act. For instance, federal uniformity in emissions controls has preempted certain state variations deemed obstructive, ensuring consistent application across borders. Proponents of such preemption emphasize its role in enhancing by avoiding compliance costs from a of rules, facilitating national markets and through predictable standards. Critics argue it stifles experimentation with tailored regulations, potentially hindering local responses to unique environmental or health challenges and reducing competitive incentives for regulatory improvement. Empirical analyses indicate that while preemption streamlines interstate operations, it can centralize power in ways that overlook regional diversity, prompting ongoing debates over the optimal federal- balance.

Recent Cases Involving Intergovernmental Conflicts (2000–2025)

In (2005), the upheld the federal Controlled Substances Act's prohibition on marijuana cultivation and use, ruling 6-3 that it preempts conflicting state medical marijuana laws under the Supremacy Clause, as Congress's authority extends to purely intrastate activities with aggregate effects on interstate commerce. This decision reinforced federal supremacy in drug enforcement despite state authorizations in and other jurisdictions, though subsequent Department of Justice guidance under multiple administrations has limited federal enforcement against state-regulated programs, allowing de facto coexistence without formal preemption challenges reaching the Court. The immigration context has featured notable conflicts, as in Arizona v. United States (2012), where the Court invalidated three provisions of Arizona's S.B. 1070—requiring state licensing checks for business with undocumented immigrants, mandating warrantless arrests for suspected immigration violations, and criminalizing unauthorized presence—as preempted by federal law due to field preemption and direct obstacles to uniform national policy. Section 2(B), allowing state inquiries into immigration status during lawful stops, survived as not conflicting with federal objectives. Subsequent Trump administration lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions, such as California and New York City in 2018 and 2025, asserted Supremacy Clause preemption over state laws restricting cooperation with federal detainers and information-sharing, arguing obstruction of enforcement; lower courts have mixed outcomes, often rejecting preemption absent active interference, consistent with anti-commandeering principles limiting federal coercion of state resources. COVID-19 era disputes highlighted tensions in federal regulatory mandates potentially preempting state public health frameworks. In NFIB v. Department of Labor (2022), the Court stayed the OSHA vaccine-or-test rule for large employers on statutory grounds, emphasizing that such broad occupational safety measures exceeded agency authority and implicitly preserved state variations in pandemic response without automatic federal override. Conversely, Biden v. Missouri (2022) permitted the CMS vaccine mandate for healthcare workers at federally funded facilities, as tied to Medicare/Medicaid conditions that states accept, illustrating Supremacy's role in enforcing federal spending power obligations over state objections. These per curiam decisions reflected federalism constraints, blocking expansive mandates lacking clear congressional backing. In Martin v. United States (2025), the unanimous Court held that the Supremacy Clause provides no independent defense for the federal government in (FTCA) suits alleging state-law torts by federal employees, as the FTCA explicitly waives and incorporates state substantive law for liability determinations. Rejecting the Eleventh Circuit's view that Supremacy immunizes federal actors from state remedies conflicting with sovereign functions, Justice Gorsuch's opinion clarified that Supremacy resolves only actual legal conflicts between federal enactments and state law, not statutory schemes like the FTCA that deliberately yield to state standards. Overall, 2020s rulings under the originalist majority exhibit restraint on broad obstacle preemption, requiring explicit congressional intent for federal override and invoking the major questions doctrine to curb agency-driven expansions that encroach on state domains, as seen in skepticism toward implied preemptive effects of ambiguous statutes. This approach tempers Supremacy's application in intergovernmental disputes, prioritizing enumerated powers and textual limits over expansive federal authority.

Controversies and Critiques of Expansive Interpretations

Erosion of State Sovereignty and Originalist Critiques

Originalist interpreters, including Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, contend that expansive applications of the Supremacy Clause undermine the original constitutional design by eroding the sovereignty reserved to states under the Tenth Amendment, as federal supremacy was intended to apply only to laws enacted within Congress's enumerated powers. This view holds that the Clause elevates valid federal enactments over conflicting state laws but does not authorize Congress to exceed its structural limits, such as by commandeering state officials or using treaties to regulate purely domestic affairs beyond enumerated authority. In (1997), the invalidated provisions of the that required state law enforcement officers to conduct background checks, with Scalia, writing for the majority, invoking historical evidence from the Founding era to affirm an anti-commandeering principle implicit in the Constitution's federal structure. Scalia emphasized that the Framers rejected a system where the national government could conscript state executives, preserving dual sovereignty to prevent federal overreach and ensure accountability through divided powers rather than centralized coercion. This decision exemplified originalist resistance to interpretations treating the Supremacy and Necessary and Proper Clauses as licenses for indefinite federal expansion, arguing such readings distort the original balance where states retain independent authority outside enumerated federal domains. Similarly, in Bond v. United States (2014), Justice Thomas, in concurrence, critiqued the notion that the Treaty Power, combined with the Supremacy Clause, could authorize to legislate on matters traditionally reserved to states, such as local crimes, absent clear enumeration. Thomas maintained that treaties do not enlarge legislative jurisdiction; instead, implementing statutes must hew to Article I limits, preventing the executive and from indirectly aggrandizing federal power over state concerns like domestic relations or minor assaults. This stance reflects broader originalist concerns that post-New Deal doctrines have incrementally subordinated state policy autonomy, fostering an unaccountable administrative state detached from representative consent. Critics from this perspective acknowledge federal supremacy's role in enabling national achievements, such as unified defense during World War II and economic standardization via interstate commerce regulation, yet argue these successes stemmed from faithful adherence to enumerated powers rather than Clause-driven preemption creep. However, they highlight how proliferating preemption—evident in the surge of federal statutes overriding state regulations from the 1980s onward, particularly in areas like environmental and product safety rules—has frustrated state innovations and centralized authority in bureaucracies less responsive to local needs. Originalists warn that this erosion risks converting the federal system into a unitary one, contrary to the causal intent of the Framers to mitigate tyranny through competing sovereignties, as evidenced by ratification debates rejecting consolidated national power.

Debates Over Federal Overreach in Mandates and Immigration

In the realm of immigration enforcement, debates over federal overreach have centered on the Supremacy Clause's role in preempting state initiatives amid perceived federal inaction. The 2012 Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States invalidated key provisions of Arizona's S.B. 1070, including requirements for state officers to check immigration status during warrantless arrests and to warrant entry for suspected illegal immigrants, ruling them preempted by federal law's comprehensive framework for immigration regulation. However, the Court upheld Section 2(B), permitting state inquiries into immigration status during lawful detentions, affirming limited state cooperation without infringing federal exclusivity. Proponents of state action, including Arizona officials, argued that federal non-enforcement imposed uncompensated burdens, with empirical estimates from the time placing annual costs to border states at billions in education, healthcare, and incarceration expenses borne by local taxpayers. Federal advocates countered that immigration uniformity is essential for national security and foreign relations, preventing a patchwork of state policies that could undermine diplomatic consistency. Recent Texas border measures under , launched in March 2021, have intensified these tensions by deploying state resources—including razor wire barriers, marine buoys, and arrests for illegal entry under Senate Bill 4 (enacted March 2024)—to deter crossings amid record migrant encounters exceeding 2.4 million nationwide in fiscal year 2023. The Biden administration sued , asserting S.B. 4 violates the Supremacy Clause by intruding on exclusive federal authority over , leading to temporary blocks, though the in January 2024 permitted continued state barrier enforcement pending appeal. defended its actions by invoking state police powers and emergency clauses, citing invasion-like conditions and fiscal strains; a 2021 state analysis estimated costs over $850 million annually in healthcare, education, and , excluding indirect economic drags. Critics of federal dominance highlight data showing states absorbing 40-50% of enforcement costs without reimbursement, per reports from the , while federal uniformity advocates emphasize risks of inconsistent enforcement eroding national border integrity, as evidenced by varying apprehension rates across sectors. On unfunded mandates, challenges invoking Supremacy Clause limits have scrutinized federal impositions coercing state compliance without adequate funding or consent. In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the deemed the Affordable Care Act's expansion unconstitutionally coercive, as it threatened states with loss of all existing federal funds—totaling over $200 billion annually nationwide—for non-participation, effectively commandeering state budgets despite supremacy binding states to valid federal conditions. Seven justices agreed the leverage exceeded Spending Clause bounds, severing the threat to preserve state choice, though 26 states ultimately expanded by 2025. States like argued this exemplified overreach, shifting $850 billion in projected long-term costs to subnational budgets amid stagnant reimbursements. COVID-19 vaccine mandates further exemplified mandate disputes, with states challenging federal edicts as overreaching into local governance. The in NFIB v. Department of Labor, OSHA (January 2022) struck down the Administration's requirement for vaccination or testing among 84 million workers at firms with 100+ employees, deeming it an unlawful extension of agency authority beyond workplace-specific hazards, thus limiting federal supremacy in private-sector impositions. Conversely, the Court upheld the mandate for 10 million healthcare workers at federally funded facilities, prioritizing uniformity. States including and sued, citing coercion costs estimated at $1-2 billion for compliance infrastructure, arguing federal dictates bypassed state experimentation in response; empirical data from the showed non-expansion states faced 20-30% higher uninsured rates pre-mandate, underscoring tensions between national crisis coordination and local fiscal autonomy. Federal proponents stressed supremacy's necessity for interstate disease control, preventing fragmented policies that could exacerbate outbreaks, as seen in varying state hospitalization rates during 2021 peaks exceeding 100,000 daily nationwide.

Alternative Views: Dual Sovereignty and Limits on Supremacy

Dual sovereignty posits that the Supremacy Clause operates within a framework of concurrent yet distinct sovereign spheres for federal and state governments, where federal law prevails only over matters within Congress's enumerated powers, leaving residual authority intact under the Tenth Amendment. This perspective interprets the Clause as a rule of decision for conflicts arising from valid federal authority, not an independent grant of power that overrides state sovereignty absent textual delegation. Proponents argue that unchecked federal supremacy risks centralizing authority beyond constitutional bounds, undermining the ratification-era compact where states delegated limited powers while retaining core functions like policing and governance. Judicial applications reinforce limits through presumptions against preemption in traditional state domains. In Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991), the Supreme Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act required a clear statement to abrogate Missouri's constitutional age limit for judges, invoking a presumption to protect state-defined qualifications for integral governmental roles. Similarly, Alden v. Maine (1999) affirmed state sovereign immunity from unconsented private suits for damages in state courts under federal laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act, extending Eleventh Amendment principles to preserve state dignity and autonomy beyond federal judicial forums. These rulings establish that the Supremacy Clause yields to structural federalism constraints, requiring explicit congressional intent to encroach on state sovereignty. Critiques of expansive Supremacy Clause interpretations highlight tensions between "" methodologies and textualist approaches. Living constitutionalism, often critiqued for enabling judicial or legislative expansion of federal authority to advance policy goals like regulatory uniformity, contrasts with textualism's emphasis on ordinary meaning and enumerated limits to restrain preemption absent clear statutory language. Textualists contend that purpose-driven preemption doctrines inflate federal power by inferring implied overrides, diverging from the Clause's conditional supremacy tied to valid exercises of delegated authority. Such critiques underscore originalist views that the Clause's framers intended harmony with state reserves, not perpetual federal dominance. Empirically, dual sovereignty facilitates state-level policy experimentation, with over 50 jurisdictions enabling across domains like taxation and regulation. Studies document how state adoptions influence neighbors—e.g., reforms in the spreading via learning and —demonstrating federalism's causal role in generating evidence-based policies without uniform national imposition. This dynamic, evidenced in analyses of 7,500+ policy adoptions from 1960–2020, underscores the Tenth Amendment's synergy with Supremacy limits, fostering adaptive governance through decentralized trials rather than centralized mandates.

Enduring Impact on American Governance

Reinforcement of Enumerated Powers Framework

The Supremacy Clause's requirement that federal laws qualify as the "supreme Law of the Land" only if "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution ensures that supremacy applies exclusively to enactments within Congress's enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8, thereby cabining federal authority and preserving state prerogatives where federal legislation exceeds constitutional bounds. This textual limitation, rooted in the clause's phrasing, mandates judicial invalidation of federal statutes not grounded in delegated powers, preventing an expansive reading of supremacy from authorizing unlimited national domain. In practice, courts assess whether a law falls within enumerated grants like the Commerce Clause before deeming it supreme over conflicting state measures, reinforcing the Constitution's structural federalism. The Supreme Court's decision in (1995) exemplifies this reinforcement, striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as an invalid exercise of authority because possessing a near a school neither constituted economic activity nor substantially affected interstate commerce. By holding the statute unconstitutional, the Court clarified that laws failing this test lack the "pursuance" qualifier, rendering them non-supreme and ineligible to state law, thus restoring limits on federal overreach into traditionally local matters like and crime. This ruling marked a pivot from prior expansive interpretations, emphasizing that power extends only to regulating channels, instrumentalities, or activities with a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. Subsequent cases, including United States v. Morrison (2000), extended Lopez's constraints by invalidating parts of the Violence Against Women Act for regulating non-economic, intrastate violence without a sufficient commercial nexus, further narrowing the scope for federal preemption in social policy domains. These post-1995 limitations have curtailed automatic supremacy claims in non-economic spheres, requiring Congress to demonstrate clear ties to enumerated powers and prompting narrower federal statutes to avoid judicial nullification. Within these bounds, however, the framework has facilitated major national infrastructure, such as the Interstate Highway System established under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which Congress justified via Commerce Clause authority to regulate interstate transportation and commerce facilitation. This project, spanning over 41,000 miles by its substantial completion in the 1990s, underscores how validated federal laws achieve unity in economic regulation without encroaching on non-delegated areas.

Balance Between National Unity and Local Autonomy

The Supremacy Clause addressed the disunity under the , where states often disregarded national obligations, leading to economic and diplomatic fragmentation that prompted the 1787 Constitutional Convention. By establishing federal laws, treaties, and the as supreme over conflicting state actions, the Clause fostered national cohesion without granting new substantive powers beyond those enumerated elsewhere. This mechanism prevented a return to confederation-style weaknesses, such as inconsistent interstate and instability, enabling unified responses to national challenges. One empirical outcome of this unity was the establishment of a uniform national currency through the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864, which authorized federally chartered banks to issue notes backed by U.S. bonds, countering the proliferation of over 7,000 varieties of state banknotes that had depreciated variably during the . Federal supremacy underpinned this system by preempting state currencies via a 10% on state bank notes in 1865, reducing circulation from $300 million to near zero by 1875 and stabilizing across states. Such measures contributed to long-term governance stability, averting repeated threats of dissolution akin to the Confederation's near-collapse, as evidenced by the Union's preservation and post-1865 without successful secessions thereafter. However, public choice theory highlights risks of federal-level capture by concentrated interests, where rational self-interested actors in a centralized pursue policies benefiting narrow groups at diffuse national expense, potentially more efficiently than in fragmented arenas due to higher stakes and uniform enforcement. This dynamic can erode local autonomy, as federal decisions override variations tailored to regional needs, amplifying over voter accountability. Empirical observations of policy divergence—such as varying tax regimes, environmental regulations, and welfare experiments—demonstrate preserved autonomy in non-preempted spheres, allowing "" where innovations like 1990s welfare reforms diffused nationally after trials. The Framers' original intent, as articulated in Federalist No. 33, viewed the Supremacy Clause not as expansive but as declaratory of necessity: without it, state resistance to valid federal acts would undermine the compact, yet it applied only to constitutional federal powers, preserving concurrent state authority in reserved domains like police powers where no conflict arises. Thus, the Clause functions as a federalism stabilizer, resolving supremacy only upon direct clash while enabling policy experimentation and adaptation at state levels, maintaining equilibrium between unified action on national scales and localized governance. Historical metrics, including sustained interstate economic interdependence and avoidance of balkanization, affirm this balance over two centuries, though expansions beyond enumerated powers invite critiques of over-centralization.

References

  1. [1]
    U.S. Constitution - Article VI | Resources | Library of Congress
    The original text of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States.Browse · Article VII · Article VMissing: source | Show results with:source
  2. [2]
    Article VI | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    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 ...Missing: source | Show results with:source
  3. [3]
    ArtVI.C2.1 Overview of Supremacy Clause - Constitution Annotated
    The Supremacy Clause was a response to problems with the Articles of Confederation (the Articles), which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789.
  4. [4]
    The Supremacy Clause - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw
    The Supremacy Clause established the supremacy of federal laws, regulations, and treaties over similar state laws. The Supremacy Clause helped give ...
  5. [5]
    Interpretation: The Supremacy Clause | Constitution Center
    Under the Supremacy Clause, the “supreme Law of the Land” also includes federal statutes enacted by Congress. Within the limits of the powers that Congress gets ...
  6. [6]
    Gibbons v. Ogden | Oyez
    A case in which the Court decided that the federal government has exclusive power over interstate commerce.
  7. [7]
    Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Established under Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause enables the federal government to enforce treaties, create a central ...
  8. [8]
    Article VI Supreme Law - Constitution Annotated - Congress.gov
    Article VI Supreme Law Clause 2: Supremacy Clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.Missing: source | Show results with:source
  9. [9]
    Articles of Confederation (1777) | National Archives
    Oct 23, 2023 · The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777. This document served as the United States' first constitution.Missing: issuing | Show results with:issuing
  10. [10]
    Identifying Defects in the Constitution | To Form a More Perfect Union
    Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the authority to regulate commerce, making it unable to protect or standardize trade between foreign ...
  11. [11]
    Annapolis Convention | George Washington's Mount Vernon
    May 30, 2025 · Held September 11-14, 1786, the Annapolis Convention was a meeting aimed at constructing uniform parameters to regulate trade between states.
  12. [12]
    [PDF] The Anti-Federalists' Toughest Challenge: Paper Money, Debt Relief ...
    States issuing paper currency were Rhode Island, New York,. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Edwin. J. Perkins, American ...
  13. [13]
    Understanding The Virginia Plan - Constitution - LAWS.COM
    Aug 15, 2024 · The Virginia Plan, also known as the Randolph Plan, was proposed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as an alternative to the existing ...
  14. [14]
    ArtVI.C2.2.2 Supremacy Clause and the Constitutional Convention
    The Convention's Committee of Style ultimately placed the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, immediately before a provision requiring all judges to take an oath ...
  15. [15]
    August 23, 1787: The Supreme Law of the Land
    Sep 22, 2023 · The Supremacy Clause passed: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made ...
  16. [16]
    Debate on National Veto of State Laws | Teaching American History
    However, the convention approved the supremacy clause, which was understood as authorizing the federal judiciary to invalidate state laws. What are the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  17. [17]
    [PDF] The Supremacy Clause as a Constraint on Federal Power
    In Kramer's view, "the Supremacy Clause indicates that the Framers believed courts could play a role in enforcing the Constitution against the states," but ...Missing: weaknesses | Show results with:weaknesses
  18. [18]
    Federalist No 33 - The Avalon Project
    Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth ...
  19. [19]
    The Federalist Papers #33: The 'Necessary and Proper' and ...
    Jun 20, 2021 · A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results ...
  20. [20]
    The Federalist Papers Essay 44 Summary and Analysis | GradeSaver
    Mar 13, 2024 · He defends the supremacy clause by asserting that it is a basic characteristic of government to have the authority to pass authoritative law.
  21. [21]
    Brutus 1 - Teaching American History
    ” The necessary and proper clause, the supremacy clause, and the judicial power have the potentiality to transform America from a system of confederated ...
  22. [22]
    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: Brutus, no. 1
    For all laws made, in pursuance of this constitution, are the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the ...
  23. [23]
    Debate and Ratification of the Supremacy Clause | U.S. Constitution ...
    The Federalist No. 33 (Alexander Hamilton). In response to concerns about the treaty power, Federalists contended that the supremacy of treaties was ...Missing: text | Show results with:text
  24. [24]
    Tenth Amendment | Center for the Study of Federalism
    ... Tenth Amendment was unnecessary, the pressure from the Anti-Federalists proved daunting. ... Supremacy Clause of the Constitution made clear that the framers ...
  25. [25]
    The Debate Over a Bill of Rights
    Antifederalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare ...
  26. [26]
    Article VI - Supremacy and Oaths - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw
    Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid ...Missing: structure | Show results with:structure
  27. [27]
    2.4: Chapter 14- The Battle for Ratification and the Bill of Rights
    Sep 15, 2023 · ... supremacy over the states would mean that “the declarations of ... Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] ARTICLE VI SUPREME LAW - GovInfo
    DRAHOZAL, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE:AREFERENCE GUIDE TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 34 (2004). 14 U.S. CONST. art. VI cl. 2. 1 See generally WILLIAM NISBET ...
  29. [29]
    About the Senate & the U.S. Constitution | Oath of Office
    " In 1789 the First Congress adopted a simple oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." At the ...
  30. [30]
    The Oath of Office: The First Act of the First Congress
    May 30, 2014 · In 1884, the Iron Clad Test Oath was repealed. The second part of the oath, which promised faithful support of the Constitution in the future, ...Missing: implementation compliance 1800
  31. [31]
    Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Library of Congress
    Aside from Article VI, which stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, the Constitution said ...
  32. [32]
    ArtVI.C3.2.2 Interpretation of Religious Test Clause
    No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
  33. [33]
    McCulloch v. Maryland | Oyez
    In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national ...Missing: quotes | Show results with:quotes
  34. [34]
    McCulloch v. Maryland | 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
    The American people have declared their Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof to be supreme, but this principle would transfer the supremacy, in ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  35. [35]
    McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - National Archives
    May 10, 2022 · It is so involved in the declaration of supremacy, so necessarily implied in it, that the expression of it could not make it more certain. We ...
  36. [36]
    Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) | Wex - Law.Cornell.Edu
    The court decided in this case that the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate not only interstate commerce but also intrastate commerce (commerce within a ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] The Law of Preemption - National Association of Attorneys General
    This is known as “field preemption.” Express Preemption. “express preemption” occurs when congress puts language into a federal statute expressly declaring that ...
  38. [38]
    Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer - Congress.gov
    May 18, 2023 · The Constitution's Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is "the supreme Law of the Land" notwithstanding any state law to the contrary.Missing: exact | Show results with:exact
  39. [39]
    preemption | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    The preemption doctrine is the idea that a higher authority of law will displace the law of a lower authority of law when the two authorities come into conflict ...
  40. [40]
    Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. | 331 U.S. 218 (1947)
    A district court dismissed suits brought by a warehouseman licensed under the United States Warehouse Act to enjoin further proceedings on a complaint filed by ...
  41. [41]
    [PDF] PREEMPTION AS PURPOSIVISM'S LAST REFUGE
    This Note argues that approaching preemption cases from a textualist perspective would be more consistent with the Court's gen- eral method of interpretation ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
  42. [42]
    [PDF] TEXTUALISM AND OBSTACLE PREEMPTION | Georgia Law Review
    Jun 26, 2012 · The structure of preemption doctrine is straightforward. The. Court divides preemption into two overarching categories: express and implied.51 ...
  43. [43]
    Foreign Treaties in the Federal Courts - Federal Judicial Center |
    Some commentators have expressed the view that the self-execution doctrine violates the Supremacy Clause because it denies some treaties their constitutionally ...
  44. [44]
    The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution
    (ii) States repeatedly violated treaties with Indian nations, and the Confederation was powerless to prevent or punish those violations. (iii) States regularly ...Missing: non- | Show results with:non-<|control11|><|separator|>
  45. [45]
    Ware v. Hylton | 3 U.S. 199 (1796) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
    Ware v. Hylton: International treaties trump state law, although not the Constitution, because of the Supremacy Clause.
  46. [46]
    ArtII.S2.C2.1.4 Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Treaties
    The Supremacy Clause marked a shift from the British system under which treaties generally have domestic effect only after being implemented by Parliament.
  47. [47]
    Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Treaties | U.S. Constitution ...
    The Supreme Court has never fully explained the relationship between non-self-executing treaties and the Supremacy Clause.42 Footnote See, e.g., Fourth ...
  48. [48]
    Missouri v. Holland | 252 U.S. 416 (1920)
    It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit ...
  49. [49]
    State of Missouri v. Holland - Oyez
    In a 7-to-2 decision authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the exercise of the treaty power and found no violation of the Tenth Amendment.
  50. [50]
    Supremacy Clause: Early Doctrine | U.S. Constitution Annotated
    The Supremacy Clause rendered null and void a state constitutional or statutory provision that was inconsistent with a treaty executed by the Federal ...
  51. [51]
    ArtII.S2.C2.1.8 Preemptive Effect of Treaties - Constitution Annotated
    The Supreme Court has held that treaty provisions preempt contrary state or local laws on many occasions.
  52. [52]
    Ware v Hylton: Supreme Court Power to Invalidate State Laws
    May 10, 2016 · In Ware v. Hylton, 3 US (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the US Supreme Court held that the federal courts are authorized to determine the constitutionality of state laws.
  53. [53]
    Medellín v. Texas | 552 U.S. 491 (2008)
    Mar 25, 2008 · Medellín v. Texas: To be binding on U.S. courts, international treaties must be self-executing or implemented by supporting laws created by ...
  54. [54]
    Medellin v. Texas | Oyez
    Oct 10, 2007 · Roberts. The Court held that the signed Protocol of the Vienna Convention did not make the treaty self-executing and, therefore, the treaty is ...
  55. [55]
    [PDF] Medellin and Originalism - DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law
    Feb 26, 2009 · Supremacy Clause, informed the majority opinion. Even the dissent ... The purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to prevent U.S. treaty.
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Medellín v. Texas - Harvard Law Review
    The debate over whether treaties should be presumed to be self-executing, meaning automatically en- forceable in domestic courts, ...
  57. [57]
    South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification | American Battlefield Trust
    “nullifiers” in the South Carolina convention declared that the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and should be nullified.
  58. [58]
    Proclamation Regarding Nullification - Teaching American History
    Proclamation Regarding Nullification. by Andrew Jackson. December 10, 1832 ... supremacy given to the laws of the Union over those of the states, or to ...
  59. [59]
    Proclamation 43—Regarding the Nullifying Laws of South Carolina
    ... supremacy to the Constitution and laws of the United States over those of ... Secretary of State. Andrew Jackson, Proclamation 43—Regarding the ...
  60. [60]
    Nullification Crisis | Significance, Cause, President, & States Rights
    Oct 18, 2025 · On December 10, 1832, Jackson issued his “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina,” asserting the supremacy of the federal government ...
  61. [61]
    Looking Back: Nullification in American History | Constitution Center
    Feb 4, 2022 · In a “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina” issued in December 1832, Jackson pointed to the Supremacy Clause and declared nullification:.
  62. [62]
    Ableman v. Booth | 62 U.S. 506 (1858)
    The supremacy is not, indeed, set forth distinctly and broadly, in so many words, in the printed opinions of the judges. It is intermixed with elaborate ...
  63. [63]
    Ableman v. Booth | U.S. Supreme Court, Slavery Abolition, Free State
    Ableman v. Booth, (1859), case in which the US Supreme Court upheld both the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act and the supremacy of the federal ...
  64. [64]
    [PDF] Cases that Shaped the Federal Courts: Ableman v. Booth
    Article IV, Section 2's Supremacy Clause made it clear that “judges in every State shall be bound” by federal law, and the Supreme Court was the last word on ...
  65. [65]
    ArtVI.C2.3.3 New Deal and Presumption Against Preemption
    at 350. The Court endorsed a similar principle in Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., where it held that the federal Warehouse Act superseded some—but not all ...
  66. [66]
    Perez v. Campbell | 402 U.S. 637 (1971)
    Perez v. Campbell concerns whether an Arizona law preventing bankruptcy discharge of auto accident judgments conflicts with the federal Bankruptcy Act, ...
  67. [67]
    PEREZ v. CAMPBELL, 402 U.S. 637 (1971) - FindLaw Caselaw
    This case raises an important issue concerning the construction of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution - whether Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 28-1163 (B) (1956), ...
  68. [68]
    Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn. | 505 U.S. 88 ...
    The case concerns whether Illinois' state laws on hazardous waste worker licensing are preempted by the OSH Act, which the court ruled they are for training ...
  69. [69]
    Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992).
    In this case, we consider whether these "dual impact" statutes, which protect both workers and the general public, are pre-empted by the federal Occupational ...<|separator|>
  70. [70]
    Voting Rights Act (1965) | National Archives
    Feb 8, 2022 · EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and for other purposes, ...
  71. [71]
    [PDF] The Supreme Court Abandons the State Sovereignty Doctrine
    The tenth amendment and a narrow definition of the commerce clause's scope were the two components of the dual federalism doctrine that the Court applied ...
  72. [72]
    [PDF] The Tenth Amendment and the Resolution of Federalism Conflicts
    In the early twentieth century federal regulations under the com- merce power mushroomed. State functions became increasingly di- verse. Conflict arose when ...
  73. [73]
    GEIER V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.
    Ruling that their claims were expressly pre-empted by the Act, the District Court granted American Honda summary judgment. In affirming, the Court of Appeals ...
  74. [74]
    Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. | 529 U.S. 861 (2000)
    The District Court dismissed the lawsuit. The court noted that FMVSS 208 gave car manufacturers a choice as to whether to install airbags. And the court ...
  75. [75]
    Geier v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. - Oyez
    The District Court ruled in favor of Honda, finding that Geier's claims were expressly pre-empted by the Act because a jury verdict in Geier's favor "might ...
  76. [76]
    PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing | 564 U.S. 604 (2011)
    The Court concluded that the federal drug regulations preempted the state law claims because, if manufacturers had independently changed their labels to satisfy ...
  77. [77]
    PLIVA, INC. v. MENSING - Law.Cornell.Edu
    The case involves generic drug manufacturers sued for inadequate warning labels on metoclopramide. The court reversed, finding federal regulations pre-empted ...
  78. [78]
    [PDF] The Shifting Preemption Paradigm: Conceptual and Interpretive Issues
    Oct 5, 1998 · Early cases show that the. Supreme Court viewed preemption as an automatic consequence of congressional action in a field such as interstate ...
  79. [79]
    When States Get It Wrong and the Case for Federal Preemption
    Oct 23, 2018 · Just as federalism can be market preserving by creating competition between different state and local markets, it can also be market destroying.Missing: uniformity | Show results with:uniformity
  80. [80]
    Rise of State Preemption Laws in Response to Local Policy Innovation
    May 25, 2017 · Abstract. This article analyzes the increasing use of state preemption law by conservative state leaders as a tool to rein in progressive ...
  81. [81]
    The Evolution of Marijuana as a Controlled Substance and the ...
    Under the principles of federalism, the federal government may preempt state marijuana laws and enforce the CSA. Thus far, the federal response to state actions ...
  82. [82]
    “Sanctuary” Jurisdictions: Legal Overview - Congress.gov
    Sep 15, 2025 · Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law preempts conflicting state or local measures, rendering them unenforceable.
  83. [83]
    Trump administration sues New York City over sanctuary city laws
    Jul 26, 2025 · The administration argues that NYC's sanctuary city laws, as immigration laws, are pre-empted by Congress' immigration laws under the Supremacy ...Missing: era | Show results with:era
  84. [84]
    [PDF] 21A244 National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA (01 ...
    Jan 13, 2022 · The mandate does contain an “exception” for employers that re- quire unvaccinated workers to “undergo [weekly] COVID–. 19 testing and wear a ...
  85. [85]
    [PDF] 24-362 Martin v. United States (06/12/2025) - Supreme Court
    Jun 12, 2025 · The Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a de- fense in FTCA suits. The FTCA is the “supreme” federal law governing the United ...
  86. [86]
    [PDF] "Major Questions" About Preemption
    Dec 1, 2024 · PreemPTioN liTigaTioN. The Supreme Court majority's skepticism of broad grants of regu- latory authority casts doubt on the preemptive effect ...
  87. [87]
    Printz v. United States | 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
    Writing for the majority, Scalia placed substantial weight on the dual sovereignty principle that divides authority between the federal government and the ...
  88. [88]
    Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) - Law.Cornell.Edu
    The petitioners here object to being pressed into federal service, and contend that congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is ...<|separator|>
  89. [89]
    [PDF] Bond v. United States: Concurring in the Judgment | Cato Institute
    Bond did not argue that the president lacked the power to enter into the treaty, and she did not contend that the treaty itself was invalid. Nevertheless, ...
  90. [90]
    Bond v. United States | 572 U.S. 844 (2014)
    Jun 2, 2014 · Bond sought revenge for her husband's affair by spreading toxic chemicals on Haynes's car, mailbox, and door knob, in hopes that Haynes would develop a rash.Missing: originalist | Show results with:originalist
  91. [91]
    Printz v. United States - Teaching American History
    In Printz, the Court ruled that Congress could not “commandeer” state and local executive officials by directing them to carry out certain tasks.
  92. [92]
    [PDF] Federalism in Crisis: Urgent Action Required to Preserve Self ...
    Nov 30, 2021 · The term “pre-emption” refers here to enactment of federal statutes or regulation that subordinate conflicting state and/or local laws or rules.
  93. [93]
    Dual Federalism | Center for the Study of Federalism
    ... Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, Supremacy Clause, and Tenth Amendment. A dual federalism reading of the Constitution limits the federal government's ...
  94. [94]
    Supremacy Clause Versus the Tenth Amendment - Justia Law
    The logic of the Supremacy Clause would seem to require that the powers of Congress be determined by the fair reading of the express and implied grants ...
  95. [95]
    Dual Federalism in Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries
    and construed the Tenth Amendment as imposing strict additional limitations ... To the extent that the Supremacy Clause played an explicit role in the federalism ...
  96. [96]
    Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) - Legal Information Institute
    In other words, the Pennhurst presumption was designed only to answer the question whether a particular piece of legislation was enacted pursuant to 5.
  97. [97]
    ALDEN V. MAINE - Law.Cornell.Edu
    Immunity from suit in federal courts is not enough to preserve that dignity, for the indignity of subjecting a nonconsenting State to the coercive process of ...
  98. [98]
    Alden v. Maine | 527 U.S. 706 (1999)
    The primary holding of Alden v. Maine is that Congress cannot force states to surrender sovereign immunity for federal claims in their courts.
  99. [99]
    [PDF] Preemption and Textualism
    Oct 4, 2013 · 83. For criticism both of the majority's implied-preemption ruling and of the lower courts' conclusion that the particular arbitration clause ...
  100. [100]
    [PDF] Textualism and Obstacle Preemption
    Jun 26, 2012 · Court's approach to statutory interpretation was a very liberal version of the legal process philosophy-emphasizing interpretation of statutes ...Missing: living | Show results with:living
  101. [101]
    [PDF] Policy Diffusion and Polarization across US States Stefano ...
    In this paper, we study the innovation and diffusion of policies at the U.S. state level. While one could also consider the diffusion across countries or at ...
  102. [102]
    The Study of US State Policy Diffusion
    This Element documents the deep and extensive impact of Walker 1969 on the study of policymaking in the US states. In the process, it organizes and analyzes ...
  103. [103]
    Federalism-Based Limitations on Congressional Power: An Overview
    Jan 31, 2023 · Although the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution designates federal law as supreme to state law, other provisions of the Constitution prohibit ...<|separator|>
  104. [104]
    [PDF] Federalism-Based Limitations on Congressional Power: An Overview
    Jan 31, 2023 · ... United States, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, are declared the supreme law of the land ...
  105. [105]
    United States v. Lopez | 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
    "The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which ...
  106. [106]
    US v. Lopez - Teaching American History
    Bush. Since 1995, Lopez has served as an important precedent for limiting Congress's commerce power in major cases like US v. Morrison (2000) and NFIB v.Missing: preemption non-
  107. [107]
    Commerce Clause | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    In 1824's Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court held that intrastate activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause, provided that the activity is part ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
  108. [108]
    [PDF] Commerce Clause Challenges After United States v. Lopez
    For instance, courts disagree over whether or not Lopez limits federal legislation to purely economic activities. See infra note 417. 23. Success in a ...Missing: preemption | Show results with:preemption
  109. [109]
    "Clearly Vicious as a Matter of Policy": The Fight Against Federal-Aid
    Jun 27, 2017 · ... power of Congress to construct interstate highways" under the constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce. With the growing ...Missing: supremacy | Show results with:supremacy
  110. [110]
    Overview of Supremacy Clause | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law
    The Supremacy Clause was a response to problems with the Articles of Confederation (the Articles), which governed the United States from 1781 to 1789.Missing: original | Show results with:original
  111. [111]
    National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 - Federal Reserve History
    Jul 31, 2022 · On February 25, 1863, Congress passed the National Currency Act (also known later as the National Bank Act) in an effort to boost the demand for ...Missing: supremacy | Show results with:supremacy
  112. [112]
    Public Choice - Econlib
    Public choice applies the theories and methods of economics to the analysis of political behavior, an area that was once the exclusive province of political ...
  113. [113]
    Laboratories of Democracy | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
    State-based policy innovation also facilitates adaptation to local needs, circumstances, and preferences. Political experimentation, however, does not ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  114. [114]
    Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Clause 2
    The Supremacy Clause reflects the framers' concern that the states, if left to their own devices, would ignore the new national government.