State Legislative Preemption under Local Government Law
State Legislative Preemption under Local Government Law
1. Overview
State legislative preemption refers to the legal doctrine under which a state legislature overrides or limits the power of local governments to enact or enforce laws in certain areas.
In other words, when a state law conflicts with a local ordinance, and the state has authority in that area, the state law takes precedence. This limits the ability of cities, counties, and municipalities to govern independently.
This concept is rooted in the hierarchical nature of the American legal system where:
The U.S. Constitution is supreme.
State constitutions and laws are next in authority.
Local governments derive their power from the state.
2. Sources of Local Authority
There are two main types of local governments in the U.S.:
A. Dillon’s Rule Jurisdictions
Local governments can only exercise powers:
Expressly granted by the state,
Implied by the express powers, or
Essential to the operation of the government (indispensable).
If there is any reasonable doubt whether the power exists, it is denied.
B. Home Rule Jurisdictions
Granted broader powers via the state constitution or legislation.
Can pass laws on local matters unless expressly preempted by the state.
However, even in home rule jurisdictions, state preemption can limit local authority.
3. Types of State Preemption
A. Express Preemption
The state law explicitly states that local governments may not legislate in a certain area.
Example: “No county or municipality may regulate X.”
B. Implied Preemption
The state does not explicitly prohibit local regulation, but preemption is inferred from the comprehensiveness of the state law.
Courts may find that the state has “occupied the field.”
C. Conflict Preemption
Occurs when a local ordinance directly conflicts with a state statute.
If it is impossible to comply with both, or the local law frustrates the purpose of the state law, the local law is invalid.
4. Case Law Examples
Case 1: Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh (1907)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Facts: The State of Pennsylvania forced the merger of Pittsburgh and Allegheny over local objections.
Holding: The Court upheld the state’s authority, stating that municipalities are creatures of the state and exist at its will.
Significance: Reinforces the principle that local governments have no sovereignty independent of the state.
Case 2: City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. (1973)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Facts: The City of Burbank passed an ordinance banning nighttime flights over its airport. Lockheed challenged it.
Holding: The Court struck down the ordinance, finding that the federal government (FAA) had preempted the field of aviation noise control, and therefore state and local regulation was invalid.
Significance: Although this involves federal preemption, it demonstrates how field preemption operates similarly at the state level when states preempt local action.
Case 3: Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison (2017)
Facts: The City of Madison prohibited firearms on city buses. The state of Wisconsin had a law permitting concealed carry.
Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the city’s policy was preempted by state law that intended to create uniform firearms regulation.
Significance: A clear example of express or implied state preemption in a home rule state.
Case 4: City of Tucson v. State of Arizona (2017)
Facts: Tucson argued it could set its own firearms regulations under its home rule charter. Arizona passed laws penalizing cities that defy state statutes.
Holding: The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the state law, finding that the state could withhold funding from cities not in compliance with state preemption laws.
Significance: Even home rule cities must yield when the state expressly or impliedly preempts.
5. Common Policy Areas Affected by Preemption
Firearms regulation
Minimum wage laws
Environmental regulations
Health and safety ordinances
Marijuana and drug enforcement
Zoning and land use
6. Arguments For and Against State Preemption
For Preemption:
Promotes uniformity across the state
Prevents patchwork regulations that burden businesses
Asserts state sovereignty over matters of statewide concern
Against Preemption:
Undermines local democracy
Ignores the unique needs of individual communities
Centralizes power at the expense of local innovation
7. Legal Tests Courts Use
Courts typically analyze:
Intent of the legislature (explicit preemption language or implied through legislative scheme)
Scope of the state law
Whether the local law frustrates the purpose of the state law
Whether local and state laws can coexist
8. Summary Table
| Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| Preemption | State overrides or limits local lawmaking power |
| Express Preemption | Clearly written in the statute |
| Implied Preemption | State law is so comprehensive, it occupies the field |
| Conflict Preemption | Local law contradicts state law |
| Dillon’s Rule | Local governments have limited powers |
| Home Rule | Local governments have broader authority unless preempted |
| Key Case | Hunter v. Pittsburgh – Local governments are subordinate to state authority |
Conclusion
State legislative preemption is a critical limitation on local government authority. While local governments may seek to address issues tailored to their communities, state laws can override or limit those actions—especially in areas the state considers of statewide concern.
Courts carefully balance local autonomy with state supremacy, especially when interpreting whether the legislature intended to preempt local control. Whether express, implied, or through conflict, preemption is a powerful legal tool that reinforces the state’s ultimate control over its political subdivisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments