If a state law is in conflict with a federal law, What Happens? and Why does it Happen?

Answer 1

The supremacy clause of the Constitution causes the federal law to trump state law. See Article VI, 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.

Answer 2

Norally the federal law takes precedance. What will happen is that the matter willend up in a federal court (though sometimes in a state court, at least to start with). There the conflict is sorted out. More oftenthan not, the state law is ruled invalid. In that case, it may be only be a portionof the law that is thrown out, or it may be the whole thing--though courts try not to do that unless hey have to.

At that point the matter is sometimes dropped. However, if the state still wants the law, they may try to draft a new law that is modified to conform to federal law, while still accomplishing the original purpose of the state law.

A good example are the "voter ID laws" at issue in many states these days. The intent is to ensure that voters are properly identified at the polls to prevent fraud. However, the way most of the "first round" of these laws was written, they would have had the effect of making it more difficult for poor people--and particularly minorities--to vote. That conflicts with federal law (specifically the Voting Rights Act of 1965). So the courts threw these laws out when suits were filed challenging the laws.

Now, a number ofstates are or ahave redrafted their voter ID laws to eliminate the aspects that conflicted with the federal law. Over time, as this back and forth process in the stats and the courts runs its course, we'll most likely see legislation that strengthens ID requirements, but does so without creating hardships for some voters.

Or--the entire issue may simply evaporate. That's entirely possible in this example (I doubt it, but its possible)--because there may not actually be a problem. What I mean is ths: making sure that voters are adequately identified is of course entirely proper and necessary. But--al states have identification procedures anyway. And, while the concernof these laws' adovcates is fine, they have not provided empirical evidence that there is even a problem. So people may simply lose interest after a while.

That's not a political comment--just an observation. There's nothing in our system that requires most laws be based on a real need to get passed (there are exceptions--mostly where a law would mandate personal behavior or other wise create a possible conflict with individual liberties). If legislatures (or Congress) want to pass unneeded laws, they can--and both liberals and conservatives frequently do just that.

The courts aren't concerned with whether the law is really necessary, however--only with whether it complies with federal law and the Constitution.

Answer 3

When a state law conflicts with a federal law, there is what the law calls "pre-emption"

Pre-emption is a legal principle in which a law of higher authority (such as federal law compared to a state law) overrides the state law, but only to the degree that both of the laws conflict.

For example, if there was a federal law that made it illegal for anyone under the age of 18 not to wear seatbelts in a car, and there was a state law that provided that anyone over the age of 16 can refuse to wear seatbelts, the federal law overrides this part of the state law. Meaning, everyone in that state under the age of 18 would be required by federal law to wear a seat belt.

However, if the state law also had a provision that it was illegal to transport a child under the age of 5 without a car seat, and the federal law didn't say anything about car seats, then that part of the state law would still be enforceable. In other words, just because one particular part of a state law might conflict with federal law doesn't mean that the entire law would be thrown out. Just whatever parts of the law happen to conflict.

Why does this happen? The United States Constitution has what is called the "Supremacy Clause" which is found under Article VI, 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.

Answer 4

If a Federal Law is written to supercede state law on the same issue, the Federal Law controls. However, there are many laws that conflict with Federal Laws, like the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but they take precednce over Federal Law to the extent that they offer greater consumer protection than the Federal Law. In cases like that, the Federal Law offers a minimum requirement which can be exceeded by State Law.

Answer 5

If a state law contradicts a federal law, the federal law wins out. For example, a state law may be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. If a state is adamant about enforcing its law that is in conflict with a Federal law, the Fed govt may cut off funding. For example, for a period in the late 20th century federal law said the maximum speed limit on Interstate highways was 55 mph. Some states did not like this and changed their speed limits to greater than 55 (65, 70, "safe and reasonable") Each interstate highway is funded by each state that has particular highway running through it and by the Feds. So those states that decided no to comply with the 55 mph speed limit lost their Federal Funding. In criminal matters, it can be different. I.e., California allows for the possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Federal law does not. So a person in California could be prosecuted under
Federal law for that which the state allows. The US Constitution says that all powers not given to the Federal government can be the states' powers. Which inversely implies the Federal law over-rides the states'. It's in the US Constitution, you can look it up cause I am too lazy myself to prove my knowledge is right. I think it's somewhere around the final articles, before the amendments.

Answer 6

Rob is absolutely right about the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, but as another responder stated, the Supreme Court has been somewhat inconsistent in its interpretations of this clause. Issues relating to states' rights are a good example of this apparent inconsistency.

There is also one other circumstance in which state law would prevail, and that is if the Congress, in its passage of a law, expressly delegated responsibility and authority to the states to pass laws on the same subject that were more restrictive than federal law, provided they were not in conflict with the law.

Answer 7

Federal law usually prevails, unless it's in conflict with the state constitution. Federal law prevails because it was put forth by our forefathers and works in tandem (most of the time) with the US Constitution. There have been several cases, of course, that has allowed for state law to prevail, but this is hardly consistent.

You should be able to find more information on the US federal law website.

Answer 8

In a lot of cases the state law wins. There are some times when the federal law will govern. It all depends on the issue involved.

Answer 9

Rob's the only one who is correct. Supremacy clause of the Constitution means federal law supersedes state law.

Answer 10

In most cases the state law prevails. There are some times when the federal law will govern. It all depends on the issue involved.