Also known as: preemption right · pre-emption right · pre-emption rights · preemption · right of preemption · pre-emption
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A statutory preference granting actual settlers the first claim to purchase designated public land at the minimum government price after they have settled in person and made improvements.
Federal statutes that directly order state legislatures or executive officers to enact or enforce a regulatory program are invalid under the anti-commandeering doctrine and do not operate as valid preemption provisions because they target state governmental action rather than private conduct.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A statutory preference granting actual settlers the first claim to purchase designated public land at the minimum government price after they have settled in person and made improvements.
A software company sought to patent a computerized method for mitigating settlement risk in financial transactions. The Patent Office rejected the application as directed to an abstract idea. The Supreme Court held that the federal patent statute barred the claim because it sought to monopolize an ineligible abstract idea rather than a patent-eligible inventive application.
The settler must have settled in person on the land, made improvements, and be the head of a family. The statute then grants the first claim to purchase up to 160 acres at the minimum government price. The preference applies even to settlers who initially occupied the land illegally.
Federal statutes that directly order state legislatures or executive officers to enact or enforce a regulatory program are invalid under the anti-commandeering doctrine and do not operate as valid preemption provisions because they target state governmental action rather than private conduct.
State legislators in New Jersey enacted a statute authorizing licensed sports books to accept wagers on professional games. Federal officials sued, arguing the state law directly contravened a federal prohibition on state authorization of such schemes. The court held the federal statute invalid under the anti-commandeering doctrine because it ordered state legislatures rather than regulating private betting conduct, so the state authorization proceeded.
After her husband's death, a Louisiana widow asserted a community property interest in his railroad retirement annuity under state law. The surviving spouse's estate invoked the federal Railroad Retirement Act's antialienation rules. The court determined that the federal statute preempted the state community property claim because it targeted the division of federal benefits rather than private conduct.
Connecticut and several states sued power companies in federal court seeking abatement of carbon dioxide emissions under state common law. The companies moved to dismiss on the ground that the federal Clean Air Act occupied the field. The court held that the federal regulatory scheme preempted the state nuisance claims because they sought to impose standards conflicting with the comprehensive federal program.
Union organizers entered a privately owned shopping center to distribute leaflets urging a boycott of a nonunion store. The center owner obtained a state court injunction for trespass. The Supreme Court held that federal labor law preempted the state trespass remedy because the organizers' conduct was protected under the National Labor Relations Act.
A Minnesota farmer sued a neighboring cooperative for crop damage allegedly caused by pesticide drift from aerial applications on adjacent fields. The cooperative defended on the ground that federal pesticide labeling rules preempted the state tort claim. The court rejected preemption because the federal rules regulated labeling rather than the common law duty to avoid physical invasion of neighboring land.
Federal statutes that directly order state legislatures or executive officers to enact or enforce a regulatory program are invalid under the anti-commandeering doctrine. A federal measure is not a valid preemption provision when it targets state governmental action rather than regulating private conduct. The doctrine applies equally to commands directed at state legislative and executive functions.
No. Conflict preemption arises whenever state law directly conflicts with federal requirements or stands as an obstacle to federal objectives, even without express preemption language. Courts examine whether the state measure interferes with the accomplishment of federal goals.
…interests. Because I believe that the Court's carefully worded analysis recognizes the importance of the equal protection and pre-emption interests I consider crucial, I join its opinion as well as its judgment. Concurring — Justice Powell I join the opinion of the Court, and write separately to emphasize the unique…
…which see Norfolk & Western Ry. v. Train Dispatchers , 499 U.S. 117, 111 S.Ct. 1156, 113 L.Ed.2d 95 (1991)—courts usually read preemption clauses to leave private contracts unaffected. American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens , — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 817, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995), provides a nice illustration. A federal statute preempts…
…She bequeathed to her sons the naked ownership in the remaining two-thirds, subject to Isaac's usufruct. All agree that, absent pre-emption, Louisiana law controls and that under it Dorothy's will would dispose of her community property interest in Isaac's undistributed pension plan benefits. A Louisiana state court, in a 1980…
…edge. EPA encourages us to view the situation not as a taking of Monsanto's property interest in the trade secrets, but as a "pre-emption
…by federal copyright law. The court first addresses the merits of the trespass claim, then BE’s arguments regarding copy
Preemption occurs when the state requirement creates an obstacle to federal objectives by conditioning or delaying products designed to interact with federal relief programs. A bulletin that categorically defers approvals pending a state study can be preempted if it effectively excludes participants from a federally intertwined market.
No. When federal policy occupies the field by implementing uniform national standards through an international convention, the Supremacy Clause renders conflicting or additional state licensing requirements unenforceable.