USA v Arizona What is Preemption? July 6, 2010 - 2:40 PM | by: Lee Ross The Obama Administration’s lawsuit challenging a controversial Arizona law cracking down on immigration is based on a legal doctrine known as preemption. It is a rather straightforward legal conflict that the Supreme Court has faced several times in recent years coming down on either side of the divide giving supporters and opponents of the Arizona law reason to claim the legal high ground. Preemption is based on the premise that federal oversight is preferred in some areas or preempts state and local laws that cover the same ground. The theory is that federal law works best in providing uniformity with rules and regulations that could never be achieved in all 50 states. This is particularly important for large businesses that generally prefer to work under one set of federal rules rather than a hodgepodge of limitations that can vary widely throughout the states.
In this case, the Obama Administration claims the controversial Arizona measure is preempted by federal law. The federal government asserts it has the primary statutory responsibility of enforcing the country’s immigration policies and that Arizona cannot pass a measure that usurps this authority. The feds will insist that if each state is allowed to create its own policies then its national immigration prerogative is thrown into chaos.
Arizona officials argue their law supports federal immigration efforts and does not impede on Washington's ability to control immigration policy. These officials including Gov. Jan Brewer (R) believe the federal government has failed in its efforts to deal with problems that are more acute in its state--that sits on the Mexico border--versus other states where the concerns over illegal immigrants are less pressing.
The high court has addressed the preemption issue several times in recent years. Here’s a look at a few of those cases:
Cuomo v. Clearing House (decided June 29, 2009)
5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia authored the opinion in favor of New York State. The ruling holds that the New York Attorney General can pursue an investigation into the lending practices of major national banks (Wells Fargo, Citibank, etc.) but may not issue subpoenas related to that investigation.
In 2005, New York's attorney general sent letters of inquiry to various banks in response to newly released federal statistics suggesting those banks might have discriminated against minority borrowers who took out home mortgages. The statistics indicated that minority borrowers were more likely to have higher interest rates on home loans than white borrowers. The letters asked for the banks to provide the attorney general proprietary information that could have been used against them in any subsequent lawsuit.
The banks and their trade association filed their own legal challenge to stop the investigation. They were eventually joined by the federal Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) which regulates large national banks. Together, they argued the attorney general cannot investigate a matter that falls within the exclusive purview of the OCC. A federal district court judge agreed and granted the banks relief from the investigation. It ruled the OCC can preempt any state investigation or prosecution of national banks even if those banks violate state laws. A divided panel of the Second Circuit of Appeals affirmed that judgment saying the OCC is entitled to due deference in its interpretation of federal law.
But the high court's opinion said that deference only goes so far and that federal laws do not foreclose on state's ability to enforce its own laws.
Wyeth v. Levine (decided March 4, 2009)
6-3. Justice John Paul Stevens authored the opinion in favor of Diana Levine. In a victory for consumer rights, the Supreme Court rejected Wyeth's claims that because they complied with federal laws they are shielded from lawsuits in state courts. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals appealed a $6.7 million jury award given to Levine, a Vermont resident, who claimed the labeling on Wyeth's anti-nausea drug Phenergan was inadequate. In 2000, health workers at Diana Levine's local clinic incorrectly inserted the drug into Diana Levine's right arm. After several weeks of excruciating pain, the arm became gangrenous and was amputated.
The majority opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens says federal laws administered by the Food and Drug Administration do not preempt Levine's successful lawsuit filed under Vermont state law. The jury in that case said Wyeth's Phenergan label did not adequately convey the dangers associated with the drug in violation of state labeling laws. Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent said "this case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law." He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia in calling the ruling a "frontal assault" on the FDA's authority to regulate the drug industry.
Riegel v. Medtronic (decided February 20, 2008)
8-1. Justice Antonin Scalia authored the opinion in favor of Medtronic. The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for approving medical devices before they are put into use. In 1996, the Medtronic-made catheter that was used in Charles Riegel's angioplasty ruptured. A suit was filed in New York claiming that the catheter was improperly manufactured and violated that state's common law. Lower courts ruled against the Riegel family concluding the states could not impose rules different from the guidelines proscribed by the FDA. And the High Court reached the same conclusion.
