DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Statuttory Preemption of State and Local Authority: History

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

~~ A COMMISSION REPORT Federal Statutory Preemption of State and Local Authority: History, Inventory, and Issues U.S. Advisory Commission on A-121 Intergovernment a1 Relations September 199: US. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 800 K Street, NW South Building Suite 450 Washington, DC 20575 (202) 653-5640 FAX (202) 653-5429 ii U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Preemption refers to the authority of the Congress Dual Sovereignty. There are three types of dual sovereignty: under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution to (2) State powers not subject to preemption-including enact statutes that displace or replace state and/or local the power of states to levy taxes and to enter into laws and powers. The Congress' power to preempt, how- nonpolitical interstate compacts; ever, is limited to the fields of authority delegated to it (2) Direct andpositive conflict between state andfederal (e.g., bankruptcy) by the people of the states through the laws-a state law is valid unless there is a conflict U.S. Constitution. with a federal law on the same subject (e.g., Civil Preemption may entail (1) federal displacement of state Rights Act of 1964); and and/or local law so as to prohibit state or local governments from exercising particular powers (e.g., a prohibition of state (3) Administrative or judicial rulings precluding pre- or local regulation of an economicactivityderegulated by the emption-for example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its amendments provide for either an Congress), (2) federal replacement of a state and/or locallaw administrative ruling by the U.S. Attorney Gen- or regulation by a federal law or regulation, or (3) federal eral or a declaratory judgement by the U.S. Dis- enactment of a requirement that state and/or local govern- trict Court for the District of Columbia that any ments comply with a federal standard. proposed change in the election system of a cov- Preemption is sometimes stated explicitly in a federal ered state or local government will not abridge statute. Often, however, there is no explicit statement of the voting rights of citizens protected by the act. preemption; consequently, the federal courts and admin- istrative agencies infer preemption based on their own Partial Preemption. Under partial federal preemption, interpretations of congressional intent. the Congress or federal administrative agencies may es- This report finds that: tablish minimum national standards for a function or ser- vice and authorize the states to exercise primary The pace and breadth of federal preemptions of state and local authority have increased regulatory responsibility, provided that state standards are significantly since the late 1960s. Of the ap- at least as high and are enforced. Partial preemption per- proximately 439 significant preemption stat- mits a state to tailor regulatory programs to meet special utes enacted by the Congress since 1789, needs and conditions. Partial preemption has become more than 53 percent (233) have been en- more commonplace since 1965 and has had a greater im- acted only since 1969. pact on federal-state relations than total federal preemp- tion. There are three types of partial federal preemption: Many public officials are unaware of the ex- tent of federal preemption. (I) Standard-a state law supersedes a correspond- ing federal law if standards are equal to or higher The state officials surveyed acknowledged than the national standards (e.g., Water Qualify the need for federal preemptions, but ob- Act of 1985 and Clean Water Act of 1977); jected to or expressed concern about some of their features. (2) Combined- the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 2970 combines partial federal preemption The U.S. Supreme Court has given the Con- with traditional dual sovereignty regulation au- gress broad discretion to exercise its preemp- thority; and tion powers. (3) State transfer of regulatory authority-the Whole- The federal courts often imply federal some Meat Act grants the Secretary of Agriculture preemption where there is no explicit statu- authority to transfer responsibility to a state that tory statement. has enacted an inspection law consistent with fed- Some federal preemptions provide substan- eral standards. tial latitude to state and local governments in the means of compliance. Total Preemption. Under total preemption, the federal government assumes complete regulatory authority. Ten There are three broad categories of federal preemp- types of total preemption were found: tion statutes-dual sovereignty, partial federal preemp- (1) No need for state andlor local assistance-bank- tion, and total federal preemption. ruptcy; U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations iii No state economic regulation allowed-deregula- nearly unanimous agreement that each preemption stat- tion of the airline and bus industries; ute should contain a sunset provision. State and local assistance needed-state and local ACIR also included five questions about federal assistance to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis- preemption in its 1992 national public opinion poll. sion in protecting public health and safety in the 75 percent of the respondents favored federal event of an accident at a nuclear generating preemption of the listing of health risks on the plant, and state enforcement of the federal ban labels of food products. on the use of products containing lead in public 50 percent of the respondents favored federal regu- water systems; lation of interstate banking. State activities exception- the National Traffic and 37 percent of the public favored federal regulation Motor Ehicle Safe& Act of 1966 allows a state or of companies that sell life, fire, property, casual- local government to establish safety require- ty, and automobile insurance. ments for equipment for its own use; 20 percent of the respondents favored federal regu- Limited regulatory turnbacks-several statutes au- lation of the location and building of low-income thorize turnback of responsibility to the states housing in local communities. (e.g., Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments The report also examines factors that seem to be of 1984 and Atomic Energy Act of 1946); encouraging the rise of preemption, including: (1) the Federal mandating of state law enactment- the general trend of increased federal regulation; (2) the loos- Equal Employment OpportuniQ Act of 1972 and ening of constitutional restraints on congressional power; similar acts mandate that states comply with fed- (3) the Congress’ constitutional obligations to protect eral laws by enacting state laws under threat of rights nationwide; (4) the reduced fiscal capability of the civil or criminal penalties; federal government, resulting in a turn to regulation to accomplish objectives; (5) the opening of new fields of Federal promotion of interstate compacts-the federal regulation in recent decades; (6)the proliferation of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 encourages formation of compacts to provide for interest groups in Washington; (7) public concern about availability of disposal capacity; herim’s competitive position in the world economy; (8) small-state concerns about the adverse impacts of big-state Gubernatorialpetitionforpreemption removal --t he regulation; (9) bipartisan support for preemptions of differ- governor of New York may petition the Secretary ent types; and (10) the popularity of many preemptions, such of Transportation for removal of a limitation on as health, safety, and environmental protection. the collection of bridge tolls on Staten Island; The report concludes by examining salient issues of State veto of a federal administrative decision-a preemption, including; (1) the large scope of preemption governor or state legislature may veto a site se- today; (2) the clarity of statutory preemption language; (3) lected by the Secretary of Energy to construct a preemption by evolution through administrative and judi- high-level radioactive waste facility (the Con- cial interpretation; (4) congressional delegation of gress may override the veto); preemption authority to administrative agencies; (5) set- (10) Contingent totalpreemption- the Voting Rights Act ting minimum versus maximum federal standards; (6)flex - of 1965 and its amendments contain provisions ibility for state and local governments; (7) the extent to that are not applied to a state or local government which the diverse forms of preemption are well matched unless certain conditions are met. to particular issues; (8) the lack of evaluation of preemp- tion statutes; (9) the question of whether preemptions To assess the impact of federal preemption and per- should be subject to sunset rules; and (10) the balance be- ceptions regarding the desirability of various approaches, tween the supremacy clause and the Tenth Amendment. ACIR surveyed state elected officials, agency heads, and ACIR has recommended limitations on federal the 26 state ACIRs. There was a consensus that there is preemption. In 1984, in Regulatory Federalism: Policy, Pro- too much federal preemption and that the Congress dele- cess, Impact and Reform, the Commission issued five prin- gates too much authority to federal administrators. Nev- ciples to guide the Congress in the exercise of those ertheless, many respondents acknowledge the need for powers. In 1987, in “Federal Preemption of State and federal preemption under certain circumstances. Local Authority’’ (Intergovernmental Perspective, Winter In general, state offcials
Recommended publications
  • A Framework for Preemption Analysis

    A Framework for Preemption Analysis

    A Framework for Preemption Analysis The decisions of the Supreme Court in cases involving preemption of state law by federal statutes have often produced considerable con- fusion' and criticism. 2 This Note argues that those decisions can be rationalized according to the protection afforded by the state law in question. Laws that protect the people inside state borders from physical injury have received the greatest deference from the Court. Laws that protect the people inside state borders from other dangers have received less deference. State laws that purport to protect people mostly outside state borders have received little deference. Recogni- tion of these categories, as they are set out in this Note, can assist courts as they deal with future preemption cases. I. Categories for Preemption Analysis It is useful to distinguish four possible relationships between na- tional and state laws, which may conveniently be called "express pre- emption," "express saving," "prohibition of dutiful conduct," and "hindrance." Express preemption and express saving are direct rela- tionships between national and state law. Express preemption occurs when a national statute expressly forbids state regulation of a certain type or expressly requires that national regulation be exclusive. Ex- press saving is present when a national statute expressly forbids courts to preempt state laws. Prohibition of dutiful conduct and hindrance are indirect relationships, which involve more complex interactions between state and national law. Prohibition of dutiful conduct is present when state law requires someone to breach duties imposed by national law. Hindrance occurs when state law interferes with op- portunities created by national law, or with the performance of federal duties.
  • Preemption Under the Controlled Substances Act Robert A

    Preemption Under the Controlled Substances Act Robert A

    Journal of Health Care Law and Policy Volume 16 | Issue 1 Article 2 Preemption Under the Controlled Substances Act Robert A. Mikos Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jhclp Part of the Health Law Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, Public Policy Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert A. Mikos, Preemption Under the Controlled Substances Act, 16 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y 5 (2013). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jhclp/vol16/iss1/2 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Health Care Law and Policy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PREEMPTION UNDER THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT ROBERT A. MIKOS States are conducting bold experiments with marijuana law. Since 1996, eighteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the drug for medical purposes, and two of them have legalized it for recreational purposes as well.1 These states have also promulgated a growing body of civil regulations to replace prohibition. The regulations cover nearly every facet of the marijuana market. Colorado, for example, has adopted more than seventy pages of regulations governing just the distribution of medical marijuana.2 Among many other things, Colorado‘s regulations require medical marijuana vendors to apply for a special Copyright © 2013 by Robert A. Mikos. Professor of Law and Director of the Program in Law & Government, Vanderbilt University Law School.
  • 2020Usdaexplanatory Notes –Agricultural Marketing Service

    2020Usdaexplanatory Notes –Agricultural Marketing Service

    2020 USDA EXPLANATORY NOTES – AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE Agency-Wide ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose Statement.....................................................................................................................................................3 Available Funds and Staff Years ............................................................................................................................ 11 Permanent Positions by Grade and Staff Years ...................................................................................................... 13 Vehicle Fleet ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Shared Funding Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Account 1: Marketing Services ................................................................................................................................... 17 Appropriations Language........................................................................................................................................ 17 Lead-Off Tabular Statement ................................................................................................................................... 17 Project Statement
  • State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional Or Held to Be Preempted by Federal Law

    State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional Or Held to Be Preempted by Federal Law

    STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW 2317 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVI- SIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UN- CONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW Three separate lists of Supreme Court decisions appear below: part I lists cases holding state constitutional or statutory provisions unconstitu- tional, part II lists cases holding local laws unconstitutional, and part III lists cases holding that state or local laws are preempted by federal law. As Congress acted as the legislature for the District of Columbia until passage of the Home Rule Act on December 24, 1973, District of Columbia statutes that were enacted by Congress are treated as federal statutes (and included in a prior appendix), and District of Columbia statutes en- acted by the District of Columbia government are treated as state stat- utes. Each case is briefly summarized, and the votes of Justices are indi- cated unless the Court’s decision was unanimous. Justices who write or join the majority or plurality opinion are listed under “Justices concur- ring”, whether or not they write separate concurring opinions, and Jus- tices who do not join the majority or plurality opinion, but write separate opinions concurring in the result, are listed under “Justices specially con- curring.” Previous editions contained only two lists, one for cases holding state laws unconstitutional or preempted by federal law, and one for unconsti- tutional or preempted local laws. The 2002 edition added the third cat- egory because of the different nature of preemption cases. State or local laws held to be preempted by federal law are void not because they con- travene any provision of the Constitution, but rather because they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through operation of the Supremacy Clause.
  • State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional Or Held to Be Preempted by Federal Law (1789–2002)

    State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional Or Held to Be Preempted by Federal Law (1789–2002)

    STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW (1789–2002) 2161 VerDate Aug<04>2004 12:57 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 077500 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 8221 Sfmt 8221 C:\CONAN\CON064.SGM PRFM99 PsN: CON064 VerDate Aug<04>2004 12:57 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 077500 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 8221 Sfmt 8221 C:\CONAN\CON064.SGM PRFM99 PsN: CON064 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PRO- VISIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PRE- EMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW Three separate lists of Supreme Court decisions appear below: part I lists cases holding state constitutional or statutory provisions unconstitu- tional, part II lists cases holding local laws unconstitutional, and part III lists cases holding that state or local laws are preempted by federal law. Each case is briefly summarized, and the votes of Justices are indicated un- less the Court’s decision was unanimous. Previous editions contained only two lists, one for cases holding state laws unconstitutional or preempted by federal law, and one for unconstitutional or preempted local laws. The 2002 edition adds the third category because of the different nature of preemption cases. State or local laws held to be preempted by federal law are void not due to repugnancy with any provision of the Constitution, but rather due to conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through operation of the Su- premacy Clause. Preemption cases formerly listed in one of the first two cat- egories have been moved to the third. A few cases with multiple holdings are listed in more than one category.
  • 2017 Volume IX No. 14 Federal Preemption and the Bankruptcy Code

    2017 Volume IX No. 14 Federal Preemption and the Bankruptcy Code

    Federal Preemption and the Bankruptcy Code: At what Point does State Law Cease to Apply during the Claims Allowance Process? 2017 Volume IX No. 14 Federal Preemption and the Bankruptcy Code: At what Point does State Law Cease to Apply during the Claims Allowance Process? Dylan Lackowitz, J.D. Candidate 2018 Cite as: Federal Preemption and the Bankruptcy Code: At what Point does State Law Cease to Apply during the Claims Allowance Process?, 9 ST. JOHN’S BANKR. RESEARCH LIBR. NO. 14 (2017). Introduction Anything you do in bankruptcy can and will be used against you in bankruptcy. Prior to the commencement of a bankruptcy case, perhaps courts should issue this Miranda-esque warning to the parties. At least, if the bankruptcy court had, Plymouth LLC (“Plymouth”) might have saved approximately $800,000 that it spent acquiring a lien against Princeton LP’s (“Princeton”) vacant office park in the Township of Lawrence, New Jersey.1 Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Plymouth’s claim against Princeton in Princeton’s bankruptcy case was disallowed for violating New Jersey’s tax sale law pursuant to section 502(b)(1) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”).2 There, Plymouth unsuccessfully argued that the claims allowance process in bankruptcy preempted New Jersey’s tax sale law.3 As this case illustrates, the application of the preemption doctrine in bankruptcy can have a dramatic effect on the outcome of a bankruptcy case. A court’s decision regarding the applicability of preemption in the claims allowance context can mean the difference between a creditor receiving the total value of their claim, or nothing at all.
  • Federal Preemption of State Tort Claims

    Federal Preemption of State Tort Claims

    The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2001 Federal Preemption of State Tort Claims Marin Roger Scordato The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Marin Roger Scordato, Federal Preemption of State Tort Claims, 35 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1 (2001). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. .I University of California U.C. DAVIS LAW REVIEW ' / Davis VOLUME 35 NOVEMBER 2001 NUMBER 1 Federal Preemption of State Tort Claims Marin R. Scordato TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................2 I. INTRODUCTION TO FEDERAL PREEMPTION ........................................9 A. Sources of FederalPreemption ....................................................9 B. Categories of Federal Preemption .............................................11 II. GEIER V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY ................. 14 III. APPROACHES TO PREEMPTION JURISPRUDENCE ...............................20 A.
  • Federal Preemption, the FDA, and Prescription Drugs After Wyeth V

    Federal Preemption, the FDA, and Prescription Drugs After Wyeth V

    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 25 Issue 2 Symposium On Health Care: Health, Ethics, & Article 19 the Law January 2014 The Other War on Drugs: Federal Preemption, the FDA, and Prescription Drugs after Wyeth v. Levine Joseph F. Petros III Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Joseph F. Petros III, The Other War on Drugs: Federal Preemption, the FDA, and Prescription Drugs after Wyeth v. Levine, 25 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 637 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol25/iss2/19 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES THE OTHER WAR ON DRUGS: FEDERAL PREEMPTION, THE FDA, AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AFTER WYETH V. LEVINE JOSEPH F. PETROS 111* INTRODUCTION Amidst the debates over health care reform in the United States, there are several common desires that most Americans share: lower costs, greater availability, and continued innovation. Yet as Americans have fixed their attentions on reform legisla- tion, few outside academia have noticed a recent and potent blow to these desires in one of the major sectors of the health care industry. This is, perhaps, because the blow came from the "least dangerous"' branch of the federal government. The case was Wyeth v. Levine,2 and the issue was the doctrine of federal preemption as it applies to the regulation of prescription drug warning labels by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
  • State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional Or Held to Be Preempted by Federal Law

    State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional Or Held to Be Preempted by Federal Law

    STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW 2377 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVI- SIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UN- CONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW Three separate lists of Supreme Court decisions appear below: part I lists cases holding state constitutional or statutory provisions unconstitu- tional, part II lists cases holding local laws unconstitutional, and part III lists cases holding that state or local laws are preempted by federal law. As Congress acted as the legislature for the District of Columbia until passage of the Home Rule Act on December 24, 1973, District of Columbia statutes that were enacted by Congress are treated as federal statutes (and included in a prior appendix), and District of Columbia statutes en- acted by the District of Columbia government are treated as state stat- utes. Each case is briefly summarized, and the votes of Justices are indi- cated unless the Court’s decision was unanimous. Justices who write or join the majority or plurality opinion are listed under “Justices concur- ring”, whether or not they write separate concurring opinions, and Jus- tices who do not join the majority or plurality opinion, but write separate opinions concurring in the result, are listed under “Justices specially con- curring.” Previous editions contained only two lists, one for cases holding state laws unconstitutional or preempted by federal law, and one for unconsti- tutional or preempted local laws. The 2002 edition added the third cat- egory because of the different nature of preemption cases. State or local laws held to be preempted by federal law are void not because they con- travene any provision of the Constitution, but rather because they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through operation of the Supremacy Clause.
  • Federal Preemption in the Dual Banking System: an Overview and Issues for the 116Th Congress

    Federal Preemption in the Dual Banking System: an Overview and Issues for the 116Th Congress

    Federal Preemption in the Dual Banking System: An Overview and Issues for the 116th Congress May 17, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45726 SUMMARY R45726 Federal Preemption in the May 17, 2019 Dual Banking System: An Overview Jay B. Sykes Legislative Attorney and Issues for the 116th Congress Banks play a critical role in the United States economy, channeling money from savers to borrowers and facilitating productive investment. While the nature of lawmakers’ interest in bank regulation has shifted over time, most bank regulations fall into one of three general categories. First, banks must abide by a variety of safety-and-soundness requirements designed to minimize the risk of their failure and maintain macroeconomic stability. Second, banks must comply with consumer protection rules intended to deter abusive practices and provide consumers with complete information about financial products and services. Third, banks are subject to various reporting, recordkeeping, and anti-money laundering requirements designed to assist law enforcement in investigating criminal activity. The substantive content of these requirements remains the subject of intense debate. However, the division of regulatory authority over banks between the federal government and the states plays a key role in shaping that content. In some cases, federal law displaces (or “preempts”) state bank regulations. In other cases, states are permitted to supplement federal regulations with different, sometimes stricter requirements. Because of its substantive implications, federal preemption has recently become a flashpoint in debates surrounding bank regulation. In the American “dual banking system,” banks can apply for a national charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or a state charter from a state’s banking authority.
  • Federal Preemption of Prescrption Drug Labeling: Antidote for Pharmaceutical Industry Overdosing on State Court Jury Decisions in Products Liability Cases, 22 J

    Federal Preemption of Prescrption Drug Labeling: Antidote for Pharmaceutical Industry Overdosing on State Court Jury Decisions in Products Liability Cases, 22 J

    UIC Law Review Volume 22 Issue 3 Article 5 Spring 1989 Federal Preemption of Prescrption Drug Labeling: Antidote for Pharmaceutical Industry Overdosing on State Court Jury Decisions in Products Liability Cases, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 629 (1989) John F. Del Giorno Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Common Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Legislation Commons, Medical Jurisprudence Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John F. Del Giorno, Federal Preemption of Prescrption Drug Labeling: Antidote for Pharmaceutical Industry Overdosing on State Court Jury Decisions in Products Liability Cases, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 629 (1989) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol22/iss3/5 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG LABELING: ANTIDOTE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY OVERDOSING ON STATE COURT JURY DECISIONS IN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES I. INTRODUCTION As a society, Americans insist on the best available medications to treat those suffering from illness. In response to this demand, Congress has entrusted the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")' with the responsibility to ensure that drugs marketed in the United States are both safe and effective.' Pursuant to the fed- eral Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act("FDCA"),3 the FDA is the sole decision maker concerning the safety and efficacy of drugs marketed in the United States.4 Ultimately, every aspect of drug formulation, production, testing, and labeling is overseen through the compre- hensive regulatory efforts of this agency.5 1.
  • Constitutional Preemption and the Relationship Between Public Law 280 and Federalism

    Constitutional Preemption and the Relationship Between Public Law 280 and Federalism

    ARTICLES INHERENTLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL: CONSTITUTIONAL PREEMPTION AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC LAW 280 AND FEDERALISM Kyle S. Conway ABSTRACT The basic principles of Indian-law jurisprudence often appear disconnected with basic principles of American constitutional law. Indian law, however, has a special significance to important issues of state and federal power. This Article seeks to build on the work of prior scholars who have sought to connect Indian law to American constitutional values. Public Law 280 is a federal law that gives states control over certain aspects of Indian affairs that were traditionally within the scope of the federal government. This Article argues that Public Law 280 is unconstitutional under a doctrine of constitutional preemption. Constitutional preemption is grounded in the system of overlapping sovereignty that forms the structure of the Constitution and should be understood as prohibiting the federal government from delegating inherently and exclusively federal powers to the states. The power to manage Indian affairs is entrusted exclusively to the federal government, and Congress cannot constitutionally delegate it to the states. The constitutional difficulties raised by Public Law 280 are particularly relevant in an era when issues of federalism are at the forefront of legal discussion. It is often accepted that courts may limit the federal government’s authority to exercise powers reserved to the states, but we should also take seriously the idea that courts may limit the states’ authority to exercise powers reserved to the federal government. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1324 I. BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 1326 A. Federal and State Authority over Indian Affairs Prior to the Passage of PL-280 .............................................