Search

The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Guss case has led to several proposals for granting to the states the right to step into the "noman's land" which now exists between federal and state jurisdictions concerning the regulation of labor relations. The author of this article emphasizes that the no-man's land was created by the refusal of the NLRB to assert its full jurisdiction and not by the Guss decision, which simply upheld federal supremacy in dealing with labor relations in interstate commerce. He therefore defends the view that the only Congressional action now required is a directive to the NLRB to exercise its full jurisdiction and the appropriation of sufficient funds to permit this directive to be carried out. The author also explains why federal pre-emption was not an important issue under the Wagner Act, and he concludes by pointing out several sections of the Taft-Hartley Act under which new pre-emption problems may arise in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders squabbled during their 2015-16 election campaigns over the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), they were talking past each other, misleading their listeners, and failing to understand what this statute pre-empting some state tort claims against the gun industry was actually about. Many critics of PLCAA argue that gun makers and sellers should be liable just like those in the auto, pharmaceutical drug, and tobacco industries. Yet, it is very rare for defendants in those industries to be successfully sued in tort for the sort of conduct that gun control advocates would like to hold the gun industry liable. In contrast to the hopes and fears of Clinton and Sanders, repealing PLCAA would not likely result in a burst of successful lawsuits, although some might be winners. Perhaps potential and actual tort litigation against this industry is better understood as part of a longer term battle over public opinion and eventual legislative reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the case National Meat Association v. Harris. It mentions its declaration on the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) which preempted a California Penal Code provision that banned federally-inspected swine slaughter houses from purchasing nonambulatory animals. It also notes the intervention of the American Meat Institute over the case.

The article presents information on the authority of the U.S. Congress in the pre-emption of state taxation and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The increase in the federal bills based on the proposal for preemptions, dual sovereignty structure and the protection of the states from federal outreach are discussed. Lack of judicial standards, regulation of private commercial activity and limitation of economic protectionism are also discussed.

The article focuses on dormancy, the term used to describe the constitutional authority over state authority in the U.S. Information is provided on the Dormant Commerce Clause which guarantees preemption over commerce and the market. The author explains how dormancy doctrines fall under a constitutional structure.

The article focuses on federalism in the U.S. during U.S. President Barack Obama's presidency (2008 to 2012). The author discusses how the Obama administration implemented large overhauls of legislation including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act which effectively limits state sovereignty. It is noted that the expansion of federal powers often preempts state power.

The article focuses on the requirements of calorie and nutrient disclosures on the food menus under the section 4205 of the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) in context of the problem of obesity in the U.S. The interpretation of the section 4205 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is discussed along with the possible impacts of the ACA's ceiling preemption. The rewriting of the section 4205 as a minimum standard in the U.S. and other alternatives to combat obesity is also suggested.

The article presents an analysis regarding Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act) and advocates for certain modifications in the U.S. It provides a brief introduction to spam as well as its major purveyors. It also mentions the summary of the CAN-SPAM Act and the evaluation of the Act's common criticisms. It recommends two modifications to the Act such as stricter anti-spam laws and more encompassing preemption clause.

This paper outlines how a series of actions by the United States Congress and federal courts to pre-empt the regulatory authority of state securities regulators contributed to the ongoing financial crisis that has caused widespread damage to both the US and global economies. The paper also provides a series of policy recommendations to enhance the ability of state securities regulators to pursue financial fraud and prosecute the perpetrators of those crimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the preemptive effect of the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 and analyzes the preemption's normative desirability in the U.S. It describes the history of rating industry and the agencies' role in the subprime mortgage crisis from 2008-2009. It analyzes the provision of preemption of the 2006 Act and argues that such act does not preempt majority of claims made by the state against rating agencies, and thus must be amended.

The article discusses the presumption against preemption as a necessary event of federalism in Tulane, Louisiana. It states that the presumption against preemption develops from the recognition that States are independent sovereigns in the state's federal system which has long presumed that U.S. Congress does not proudly pre-empt state-law causes of action. It notes the opponent's view of preemption which invokes traditional states rights federalism policies.

The article attempts to depict the state of the law relating to preemption associated with federal agency regulations especially the three preemption decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in its October 2008 term. It outlines the agency statements on preemption issues that may rise in settings involving the different types of judicial consideration or difference to agency views. It suggests how courts should assess claims of preemption of state law associated with federal agency regulations.

The United States and the European Union continue to use security strategy made during the Bush Administration. A retrospective look over the key concepts of the post 9/11 era and their relevance in a globalized world of risks and threats is imperative with a view to the making of a Obama-like US Security Strategy and the replacement/revision of the EU Security Strategy in the wake of the Lisbon Treaty adoption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which focuses on the move towards pre-emption in the criminal law in the U.S. It cites statements from the book "Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways," by Professor Alan Dershowitz, the distinguished American scholar, which stresses distinguishing real criminals from law-abiding citizens. It looks into several cases in discussing sex offender extended supervision orders as well as the joint judgment, the decision of Nettle JA and the legislative response. The court cases include RJE v. Secretary to the Department of Justice, TSL v. Secretary to the Department of Justice and Attorney-General (NSW) v. Winters. It notes that the RJE case provides an useful illustration of the move towards pre-emption in the criminal law.

The article discusses the court case Wyeth v. Levine filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of preemption. The court examined the preemption arguments of drug company including its impossible compliance with the state-law to modify the label of its antihistamine Phenergan with no violations to the federal law. The court rejected the motion for summary judgment of Wyeth arguing that its failure to warn claims were preempted by federal law and that its drug caused the amputation of Levine.

An essay is presented on the merits and demerits of arguments of Verizon and U.S. consumer protection advocates in a class action lawsuit about early termination fee (ETF). It is contended by service providers that state regulation of ETF is preempted by the Federal Communications Act (FCA). Service providers are advised to base adjustment to the amount of the fee on such considerations as the type of service plan. It stresses the need to preempt state regulation of ETF contract provisions.

The article examines territorial claims in the domain of accident law, with particular focus on the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Cipollone v. Liggett Group. A challenge to the viability of tort in light of statutory directives mandating explicit industry conduct is said to be involved in the case. Cases that comprise the efforts of the Supreme Court to address express preemption clauses in various regulations are discussed. Also explored are circumstances that may imply preemption in the face of lack of an express provision.

The article examines the standard for prescription products under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability project in light of the doctrine of preemption in the U.S. Particular focus is given to claims of prescription product design defect. It tackles the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases Riegel versus Medtronic Inc. and Wyeth versus Levine regarding the issue of prescription product preemption. An analysis of the case Altria Group Inc. versus Good, focusing on the issue of extending preemption to claims related to fraud, is provided.

The article discusses the concept of implied reverse preemption and its application to products liability in the U.S. Particular focus is given to the uncertain position of the Congress on consumer safety issues subject to tort liability. The difference between express preemption and implied preemption is explained. The author illustrates implied reserve preemption through the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

This essay discusses what the U.S. Supreme Court case Riegel v. Medtronic Inc. portends for the preemption of state law products liability claims. It builds upon the author's previously articulated agency reference model. It applies the agency reference model to the concrete setting of the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and extends the model by prescribing searching judicial review of evidence taken from the regulatory record of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

In this essay, the author renews his defense of strong field preemption for the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulation. He sets out the emergence of modern preemption law in light of the vast expansion of federal power after the New Deal with special reference to two cases. He also comments on an article by David Kessler and David Vladeck, that takes the strong view that the doctrine of implied preemption should not be applied in duty-to-warn drug cases.

The author wants to identify some first principles related to the general issue of preemption in the U.S. He explores some preemption cases that depend on some notion of congressional intent. He notes that the judicial search for this intent is usually carried on at a rather micro level. He also looks at some interstate collective action problems and at how the kind of collective action problem involved would affect the inferences that can logically be drawn as to how far Congress intended to press nationalization.

This paper outlines why state securities regulators believe that the Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure, released earlier this year by the US Department of the Treasury, severely limits the essential role of state securities regulators in protecting Main Street investors from investment fraud. NASAA takes a position directly contrary to those who advocate substantive 'regulatory reform'. Arguments that our system of regulation imposes unnecessary 'burdens', creates 'impediments to capital formation', impairs 'the competitiveness of our markets', and represents 'a disservice to investor' are simply and demonstrably false, premised on bad data, and follow unsound logic. NASAA also disputes the contention that alternative models of regulation have proven to be either more efficient or more effective. The community of state securities regulators has always been willing to discuss regulatory reforms that strike the appropriate balance between regulatory efficiency and protections for all investors. We favour prudent changes where necessary to preserve or enhance the health of our markets, but regulatory reform, as the concept is currently framed, does neither. Financial innovation has outpaced, perhaps outmanoeuvred, financial regulation. However, regulatory change should not come at the expense of investor protection, which state securities regulators have effectively provided for consumers .for nearly 100 years. The paper concludes by urging policymakers considering taking action on the Treasury's blueprint not to lose sight of the regulator's primary function: to protect investors and capital. Ultimately, any "reform' should, as a matter of first principle, seek to maintain the critical balance required to protect investors and capital alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author examines whether products liability should be criminalized at the federal level based on the proposed bill by U.S. Senator Arlen Specter that persons who manufacture lethal products should be imprisoned or fined. He argues that tort suits, and not criminal prosecutions, are the superior method to control defective products. He offers three main reasons that criminalizing products liability will result in weaker regulation and less safety, namely preemption, nonenforcement and political abuse.

The article presents information on democratizing the law of federal preemption in the U.S. A brief primer on preemption, with particular attention to the problems of the current federalism-based presumption against preemption is provided. It also develops the normative argument in favor of a balancing test that takes account of the weight of democratic support, elaborates on the content of such a test, and then considers some plausible objections to the test. The article also develops the argument for a heightened ripeness requirement in preemption cases.

If the federal government has constitutional power to address a social ill and hence has power under the Supremacy Clause to preempt state, local and common law regimes, is there a principled rationale for distinguishing federal standards that set a federal floor or ceiling? At first blush, the two appear to be mere flip sides of the same federal power: The choice of a floor reflects a goal of minimizing risk, while ceilings reflect concern with excessively stringent regulation. This Article argues, however, that these two regulatory choices are fundamentaly different in their institutional implications. Floors embrace additional and more stringent state and common law action, while ceilings are better labeled a "unitary federal choice" due to how they preclude any other regulatory choice by state regulators and also eliminate the possibility of the different actors, incentives, and modalities of information elicitation and proof that common law settings provide. Advocates of free markets respond that this is precisely the idea--regulatory certainty is enhanced with a unitary federal choice, allowing manufacturers to plan with confident knowledge of the regulatory terrain, unbuffeted by an array of uncoordinated actors. Debate over floors versus ceilings was, until recently, largely hypothetical, due to the rarity of federal imposition of ceilings. During the past year, however, in settings ranging from product approvals to regulation of risks posed by chemical plants to possible climate change legislation regarding greenhouse gases, legislators and regulators have embraced the broad, preemptive impact of unitary federal choice preemption. The federal action regarding such risks would be the final regulatory choice. But under what theory of regulation and legislation can one be confident that placing all decisionmaking power in one institution at one time will lead to appropriate standard setting? In fact, advocates of risk regulation, "experimentalist regulation" scholars, and skeptics about the likelihood of public-regarding regulation all call for attention to pervasive risks of regulatory failure. Agency and legislative inertia, information uncertainties and asymmetries, outdated information and actions, regulatory capture, and a host of other common regulatory risks create a substantial chance of poor or outdated regulatory choice. Considering these pervasive risks of regulatory failure, the principled distinctions between floor and ceiling preemption become apparent. Vesting all decisionmaking power in one institution can freeze regulatory developments. Unitary federal choice preemption is an institutional arrangement that threatens to produce poorly tailored regulation and public choice distortions of the political process, whether it is before the legislature or a federal agency. Floor preemption, in contrast, constitutes a partial displacement of state choice in setting a minimum level of protection, but leaves room for other actors and additional regulatory action. Floors anticipate and benefit from the institutional diversity they permit. This Article closes by showing how the institutional diversity engendered by retaining multiple layers of law and regulatory actors creates conditions conducive to reassessment and adjustment of rigid or outdated regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the European views on the policies and actions supporting the preemption of U.S. national security strategy. It focuses on the transatlantic fraction over preemption and criticism on the part of the European community. It determined that before Western unity can be effective against the different threats from radical Islam, Europe and America should bridge the differences of their strategic cultures

President Bush approved 64 preemption acts during 2001-2005. Fifteen acts were responses to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and five acts extended sunset provisions. The other acts removed specified powers from states in the fields of banking, commerce, energy, environmental protection, finance, foreign commerce, health, intellectual property, safety, taxation, telecommunications, and transportation. Only the two Internet taxation prohibition acts have a major impact on state governments by depriving them of billions of dollars in tax revenues that could be used to exercise their reserved powers. The other acts are minor ones on the periphery of state exercised powers compared to laws enacted in the period 1964-1999. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preemption and civil remedy jurisprudence by the U.S. Supreme Court. Discussion of the legislative history of the ERISA; Arguments about the permission of the ERISA plan fiduciaries to bring state law breach of contract claims for reimbursement; Details about employee healthcare benefit plans in the U.S.

Presents an update on federal preemption and state mortgage lending laws in the U.S. as of February 2005. State supervision of national bank operating subsidiaries; Preemption and powers rules of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; Information on the preemption rule of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The policies of Australia's current government have been so close to the United States as to invite comparisons to an Australian `deputy sheriff' executing the interests and policies of a US global marshal. Advocates of the ANZUS alliance disagree, citing the immense politico-strategic benefits Australia extracts from that relationship and insisting that ANZUS objectives are commensurate with a stable and just world order. Recent developments in international security politics such as the Iraq conflict and the persistence of global terrorism may now challenge that proposition and test the Australian electorate's future support for the American alliance. A greater determination by Australia to cultivate a more balanced approach to alliance politics will underwrite its national security interests more effectively than a sustained and rigid adherence to alliance loyalty under any circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides information on the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act preemption cases. Definition of the disabling civil dispute clause; Types of implied preemption; Information on the Keystone Theory.

Hard cases make notoriously bad law, and they also make a bad basis for asserting that there is no law. The US-led war against Iraq, and disagreements about it in the UN Security Council, do not mean that the twentieth-century attempts to subject the use of force to the rule of law have collapsed. In the Iraq crisis, the US and UK asserted a strong legal basis for their resort to force, namely, existing Security Council resolutions. More generally, both within the Security Council and beyond, a wide variety of grounds for intervention in states has been recognised in international practice. However, attempts to develop doctrines of pre-emption and humanitarian intervention have not commanded broad support, since most states still value the nonintervention norm. Disagreements between states on the legitimacy of certain uses of force remain serious and need to be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents information on the law of preemption in the U.S. Concepts of preemption and supremacy in the constitutional structure; Discussion on the core statutory preemption doctrines; Illustration of preemption under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Argues that the case Guice versus Charles Schwab & Co. was decided incorrectly under pre-existing federal rules and created bad preemption analysis precedent in the U.S. Standard for preemption; Impact of the Guice ruling on state sovereignty in the securities industry; Correct application of the preemption test to Guice.

Examines the `Cipollone versus Liggett Group Inc.' Supreme Court case in relation to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preemption debate. Status of the FIFRA preemption controversy; Courts finding preemption prior to Cipollone; Decision in the Cipollone case; Opinion about preemption.

Examines the United States Supreme Court's treatment of regulatory preemption in search of the underlying tension between presumption and deference. Discusses the cases of `Chevron' which accord deference to actions of administrative agencies and `Rice' on presumption against preemption; Reconception of regulatory preemption within the Court's structural constitutional jurisprudence.

Studies the relationship between federal and state protection of literary and artistic property in the United States. Interaction of the copyright clause, the Copyright Act and the supremacy clause; Origin and terminus of the protection of unpublished works; Judicial failure in establishing guides for the determination of the extent of federal protection and pre-emption; Conclusion of the author that the interaction of the copyright clause, the Copyright Act and the supremacy clause produces workable boundaries of permissible protection.

This section presents the status of several research on labor laws in the U.S. as of October 1984. Research being undertaken in Cornell University includes a study on preemption in labor law, a study on the experience of tenured teachers under Section 3020A of the New York State Education Law and research on the application of the First Amendment principles of free speech and freedom of association to public and private employment relationships. Meanwhile, Katie Wolfe of the University of Iowa is analyzing the current position of the U.S. National Labor Relations Board on the mandated disclosure of corporate information under the National Labor Relations Act.