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. Preemption cases formerly listed in one of the first two categories have been moved to the third. A few cases with multiple holdings are listed in more than one category. I. STATE LAWS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 1. United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cr.) 115 (1809). A Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the execution of any process issued to enforce a certain sentence of a federal court, on the ground that the federal court lacked jurisdiction in the cause, could not oust the federal court of jurisdiction. A state statute purporting to annul the judgment of a court of the United States and to destroy rights ac- quired thereunder is without legal foundation. 2319 2320 STATE LAWS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 2. Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) 87 (1810). A Georgia statute annulling conveyance of public lands autho- rized by a prior enactment violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10) of the Constitution. Justices concurring: Marshall, C.J., Washington, Livingston, Todd Justice dissenting: Johnson (in part) 3. New Jersey v. Wilson, 11 U.S. (7 Cr.) 164 (1812). A New Jersey law purporting to repeal an exemption from taxa- tion contained in a prior enactment conveying certain lands violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). 4. Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. (9 Cr.) 43 (1815). Although subsequently cited as a Contract Clause case (Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoop, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 369, 389 (1853)), the Court in the instant decision, without referring to the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10), voided, as contrary to the principles of natural justice, two Virginia acts that purported to divest the Episcopal Church of title to property “acquired under the faith of previous laws.” 5. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122 (1819). Retroactive operation of a New York insolvency law to discharge the obligation of a debtor on a promissory note negotiated prior to its adoption violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). 6. McMillan v. McNeil, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 209 (1819). A Louisiana insolvency law had no extraterritorial operation, and, although adopted in 1808, its invocation to relieve a debtor of an obli- gation contracted by him in 1811, while a resident of South Carolina, offended the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). 7. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). Under the principle of national supremacy (Art. VI), which immu- nizes instrumentalities of the Federal Government from state taxa- tion, a Maryland law imposing a tax on notes issued by a branch of the Bank of United States was held unconstitutional. 8. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819). A New Hampshire law that altered a charter granted to a private eleemosynary corporation by the British Crown prior to the Revolu- tion violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). Justices concurring: Marshall, C.J., Washington, Johnson, Livingston, Story Justice dissenting: Duvall STATE LAWS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 2321 9. Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Bank v. Smith, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 131 (1821). A Pennsylvania insolvency law, insofar as it purported to dis- charge a debtor from obligations contracted prior to its passage, vio- lated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). 10. Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1 (1823). Because the compact between Virginia and Kentucky negotiated on the occasion of the separation of the latter from the former stipu- lated that rights in lands within the ceded area should remain valid and secure under the laws of Kentucky, and should be determined by Virginia law as of the time of separation, a subsequent Kentucky law that diminished the rights of a lawful owner by reducing the scope of his remedies against an adverse possessor violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). Justice concurring: Johnson (separately) 11. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824). An Ohio statute levying a tax on the Bank of the United States, a federal instrumentality, was unenforceable (Art VI). Justices concurring: Marshall, C.J., Washington, Todd, Duvall, Story, Thomp- son Justice dissenting: Johnson 12. Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 (1827). Although a New York insolvency law may be applied to discharge a debt contracted subsequently to the passage of such law, the statute could not be accorded extraterritorial enforcement to the extent of dis- charging a claim sought to be collected by a citizen of another state either in a federal court or in the courts of other states. Justices concurring: Johnson, Marshall, C.J., Duvall, Story Justices dissenting: Washington, Thompson, Trimble 13. Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 (1827). A Maryland statute that required an importer to obtain a license before reselling in the original package articles imported from abroad was in conflict with the federal power to regulate foreign commerce (Art. I, § 8, cl. 3) and with the constitutional provision (Art. I, § 10, cl. 2) prohibiting states from levying import duties. Justices concurring: Marshall, C.J., Washington, Johnson, Duvall, Story, Trimble Justice dissenting: Thompson 14. Craig v. Missouri, 29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 410 (1830). A Missouri act, under the authority of which certificates in denomi- nations of 50 cents to $10 were issued, payable in discharge of taxes 2322 STATE LAWS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL or debts owned to the state and of salaries due public officers, violated the constitutional prohibition (Art. I, § 10, cl. 10) against emission of “bills of credit” by states. Justices concurring: Marshall, C.J., Duvall, Story, Baldwin Justices dissenting: Johnson, Thompson, McLean 15. Boyle v. Zacharie, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 635 (1832). Consistently with the principle of Ogden v. Saunders, a Maryland insolvency law could not be invoked to effect discharge of an obliga- tion contracted in Louisiana subsequently to its passage. 16. Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 435 (1842). A Pennsylvania law that diminished the compensation of a fed- eral officer by subjecting him to county taxes imposed an invalid bur- den on a federal instrumentality (Art. VI). 17. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539 (1842). A Pennsylvania statute (1826) that penalized an owner’s recovery of a runaway slave violated Art. IV, § 2, cl. 3, as well as federal imple- menting legislation. Justices concurring: Story, Catron, McKinley, Taney (separately), C.J., Thomp- son (separately), Baldwin (separately), Wayne (separately), Daniel (separately), McLean (separately) 18. Bronson v. Kinzie, 42 U.S. (1 How.) 311 (1843). An Illinois mortgage moratorium statute that, when applied to a mortgage negotiated prior to its passage, reduced the remedies of the mortgage lender by conferring a new right of redemption upon a de- faulting borrower, impaired an obligation of contract contrary to Art. I, § 10. Justices concurring: Taney, C.J., Baldwin, Wayne, Catron, Daniel Justice dissenting: McLean 19. McCracken v. Hayward, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 608 (1844). An Illinois mortgage moratorium statute that, when applied to a mortgage executed prior to its passage, diminished remedies of the mort- gage lender by prohibiting consummation of a foreclosure unless the foreclosure price equaled two-thirds of the value of the mortgaged prop- erty, impaired the lender’s obligation of contract contrary to Art. I, § 10. 20. Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 133 (1845). As to stockholders of Maryland state banks afforded an exemp- tion under prior act of 1821, Maryland statute of 1841 taxing these stockholders impaired the obligation of contract. STATE LAWS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 2323 21. Planters’ Bank v. Sharp, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 301 (1848). A Mississippi statute that nullified the power of a bank under a previously issued charter to discount bills of exchange and promissory notes and to institute actions for collection of the same was void be- cause it impaired an obligation of contract, in violation of Art. I, § 10.