Supremacy: which law wins when federal, state and city law collide

Federal law sits at the top of the ladder. This lesson covers how it beats state and city law, where it can't reach, and why California can give residents more rights than the U.S. Constitution but never fewer.

The text

[Clause 2] 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 Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Source: National Archives transcription Verified1

California says the same thing in its own constitution: "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land" (Art. III, §1) Verified2.

Courts enforce it against states

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), when Arkansas officials resisted school desegregation, the Court said its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment "is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States" (Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)) Verified3. Earlier, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) settled that the U.S. Supreme Court can review state court decisions on federal questions (Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816)) Verified4. Full lesson: Article VI.

Preemption: three ways federal law displaces local law

In Crosby, the Court summarized: it "will find preemption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal law and where the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives" (Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000)) Verified5. Our reading: a Williams ordinance is "state law" for this purpose. If it conflicts with a valid federal statute, it falls the same way a state statute would.

The other direction: no commandeering

Supremacy doesn't make cities federal employees. "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program" (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)) Verified6. Murphy v. NCAA (2018) restated it: "Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures" (Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 584 U.S. 453 (2018)) Verified7. The Tenth Amendment lesson covers this: Tenth Amendment.

Our reading: "political subdivisions" covers cities. Congress can attach conditions to grant money (South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)) Verified8, but it can't simply order the Williams police department to enforce a federal program.

A floor, not a ceiling

States can protect more. The Supreme Court recognized a State's "sovereign right to adopt in its own constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution" (PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)) Verified9. California's version: rights in its constitution "are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution" (Art. I, §24) Verified2.

So a Williams resident can have two arguments for the same problem: a federal one and a California one. The California one is sometimes stronger. Examples:

• Privacy. Article I, §1 names "privacy" among the inalienable rights (White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757) Verified10,2. See Article I, liberty and privacy.
• Speech at shopping centers. California protects it; the federal Constitution doesn't require it (PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)) Verified9.
• Public records. The federal Constitution has no right to government records. California's Article I, §3(b) does Verified2.

Who can refuse to enforce a law?

Not a state agency on its own say-so. Article III, §3.5 bars an administrative agency from declaring a statute unconstitutional or refusing to enforce it "unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional" Verified2. In Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004), the California Supreme Court held that local officials acted unlawfully when they refused to follow a state statute they believed unconstitutional without a court ruling (Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055) Verified11. See Article III.

In Williams

1. A Williams ordinance must fit the U.S. Constitution, federal law, the California Constitution, and state statutes, in that order.
2. The city can't be ordered to run federal programs, but it can't block valid federal law either.
3. City staff enforce the code as written until a court says otherwise; a resident's remedy for a doubtful ordinance is a court, not a refusal by an employee.

Check yourself

Pick an answer for each question. You will see right away if it is right, and why.