Constitutional Law Quiz #3

Express Preemption

When the federal law expresses that a state can’t do certain things. 

Field Preemption

When a state law is made in a field governed by federal law.

Obstacle Preemption

When a state law gets in the way of the purpose of a federal law, indirect conflict.

Conflct Preemption

When a federal law and state law can’t co-exist, catch-22, direct conflict.

Types of Preemption

Express, Field, Obstacle, Conflict

DCC Test Part A

Does the State Law burden interstate commerce? (If no, stop)

DCC Test Part B

Is the state entitled to act because it is a market participant? (If yes, stop)

DDC Test C

Does state law on its face discriminate against interstate commerce?

DDC Test C Option 1

If test C answers yes, the law is unconstitutional unless it was the least discriminatory method to achieve a legitimate state purpose. Facial discrimination. 

DDC Test C Option 2

If test C answers no, the state law is constitutional unless the state's purpose was discriminatory or the law has an adverse impact on interstate commerce that exceeds any legitimate state purpose. Non-facial discrimination.

Anti-Comandeering

When the federal government regulates states instead of regulating conduct, unconstitutional.

Preemption

When state law and federal law regulate the same conduct, and there is tension between them.

Dormant Commerce Clause

When the states are making laws that burden interstate commerce based on the DCC test, where there is no existing federal law.

Pritnz v. US

Ruling on the constitutionality of the federal government requiring state officials to perform background checks, ruled that the federal law was unconstitutional under anti-comandeering.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

Ruled that Congress can't force state legislatures to enforce the Fugitive State Act.

Reno v. Condon

Ruling on the Driver’s Protection Act, ruled that Congress was regulating information, not South Carolina.

Murphy v. NCAA

Ruling that the federal law's prohibition on states authorizing sports gambling violated the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment.

Arizona v. US

Ruling that addressed the constitutionality of Arizona's immigration enforcement law that federal law preempted most of its key provisions

Arizona Section 3 Ruling

Making it a state crime for immigrants to reside in the country without legal permission was preempted because the federal government has "occupied the field of alien registration," leaving no room for complementary state regulation.

Arizona Section 5 (C) Ruling

Making it a state crime to work without legal authorization created an obstacle to federal regulatory objectives.

Arizona Section 6 Ruling

Allowing warrantless arrests based on probable cause of unlawful presence gave state officers greater arrest authority than Congress provided to federal immigration officers, interfering with federal discretion over the removal process.

Arizona Section 2B Ruling

Court upheld Section 2B, which required law enforcement officers to verify the immigration status of individuals lawfully stopped or arrested, though it left the provision open to future constitutional challenges, particularly regarding racial profiling.

Whitting v. Chamber of Commerce

The Court ruled that the state law, which required employers to use the E-Verify system and allowed for the suspension or revocation of business licenses for hiring unauthorized workers, was not preempted by federal law.