supremacy clause in Massachusetts

2011Partnership v. Bricklayers & Masons Trust Funds of Boston, 415 Mass. 87, 90 (1993), citing Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963).

1993Where Congress has chosen to foreclose non-Federal regulation in a given area, the supremacy clause in art. 6 of the Constitution of the United States prohibits a State from applying its own law to that exclusively Federal area. 5 See Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963); Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 209-210 (1824).

2012The supremacy clause is “ ‘not a source of any federal rights;’ rather, it ‘ “secure[s]” federal rights by according them priority whenever they come in conflict with state law.’ ” Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 450 (1991), quoting Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 613 (1979).

2010The supremacy clause “is not a source of any federal rights; rather, it secure(s) federal rights by according them priority whenever they come in conflict with state law.” Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 450 (1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2002See, e.g., DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976) (“Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power”).

1985Cf. DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 355 (1976) (State laws involving aliens are not “per se pre-empted” by exclusive Federal power over immigration); see also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 , 228 n.23 (1982).

1999Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 209-210 (1824); art.

1993Where Congress has chosen to foreclose non-Federal regulation in a given area, the supremacy clause in art. 6 of the Constitution of the United States prohibits a State from applying its own law to that exclusively Federal area. 5 See Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963); Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 209-210 (1824).

2023VI, cl. 2. 18Conflict preemption occurs when "it is 'impossible for a private party to comply with both [S]tate and [F]ederal requirements,' . . . or where [S]tate law 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'" Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 64-65 (2002), quoting Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287 (1995). 14 not to be superseded by . . .

2023VI, cl. 2. 18Conflict preemption occurs when "it is 'impossible for a private party to comply with both [S]tate and [F]ederal requirements,' . . . or where [S]tate law 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'" Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 64-65 (2002), quoting Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287 (1995). 14 not to be superseded by . . .

2020See Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 478 Mass. 169 , 184 (2017), cert. denied sub nom.

2012That is not a proper role for the Supremacy Clause, which simply ensures that the rule established by Congress controls.” Douglas, supra at 1212-1213 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). 14 Even if the plaintiffs could bring their cause of action under the supremacy clause, the claim would still be barred by the Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity.

2012“The Constitution, by delegating to Congress the power to establish the supreme law of the land when acting within its enumerated powers, does not foreclose a State from asserting immunity to claims arising under federal law merely because that law derives not from the State itself but from the national power.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 732 (1999).

2012It is irrelevant that the same result could have been imposed on the State by the Federal government pursuant to the supremacy clause.” (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.) Finch, supra at 672.

2012The supremacy clause is “ ‘not a source of any federal rights;’ rather, it ‘ “secure[s]” federal rights by according them priority whenever they come in conflict with state law.’ ” Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 450 (1991), quoting Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 613 (1979).

2011Partnership v. Bricklayers & Masons Trust Funds of Boston, 415 Mass. 87, 90 (1993), citing Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963).

2011See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 641 (1969) (although possessing plenary authority over immigration and naturalization, “Congress may not authorize the States to violate the Equal Protection Clause”); Barannikova v. Greenwich, 229 Conn. 664, 683 (1994) (“The fact that a state may act within a given realm provided it does not conflict with federal [alienage] legislation, does not also imply that when so acting it may make invidious distinctions without regard to the constitutional equal protection guarantee”).

2011See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 641 (1969) (although possessing plenary authority over immigration and naturalization, "Congress may not authorize the States to violate the Equal Protection Clause"); Barannikova v. Greenwich, 229 Conn. 664, 683 (1994) ("The fact that a state may act within a given realm provided it does not conflict with federal [alienage] legislation, does not also imply that when so acting it may make invidious distinctions without regard to the constitutional equal protection guarantee").

2011“Under the supremacy clause in art. 6 of the Constitution of the United States, we are obligated to declare invalid any State statute or regulation that purports to regulate a field that Congress has reserved exclusively to itself.” Commonwealth v. College Pro Painters (U.S.) Ltd., 418 Mass. 726, 728 (1994).

2011The “ultimate touchstone” of preemption is congressional intent, which courts discern through “the explicit statutory language and the structure and purpose of the statute.” Gade, supra at 96 , quoting Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 138 (1990), and Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 208 (1985).

2011See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 641 (1969) (although possessing plenary authority over immigration and naturalization, “Congress may not authorize the States to violate the Equal Protection Clause”); Barannikova v. Greenwich, 229 Conn. 664, 683 (1994) (“The fact that a state may act within a given realm provided it does not conflict with federal [alienage] legislation, does not also imply that when so acting it may make invidious distinctions without regard to the constitutional equal protection guarantee”).

2011See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 641 (1969) (although possessing plenary authority over immigration and naturalization, "Congress may not authorize the States to violate the Equal Protection Clause"); Barannikova v. Greenwich, 229 Conn. 664, 683 (1994) ("The fact that a state may act within a given realm provided it does not conflict with federal [alienage] legislation, does not also imply that when so acting it may make invidious distinctions without regard to the constitutional equal protection guarantee").

2010E.g., Independent Living Ctr. of S. Cal, Inc. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050, 1052-53, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008); Quest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258, 1266 (19th Cir. 2004); Pharm.

2010E.g., Independent Living Ctr. of S. Cal, Inc. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050, 1052-53, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008); Quest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258, 1266 (19th Cir. 2004); Pharm.

2004VI, cl. 2, does not tolerate a conflict between Federal and State law on a given subject, and that preemption may be implied as well as express, see Massachusetts Assn. of Health Maintenance Orgs. v. Ruthardt, 194 F.3d 176, 178 (1st Cir. 1999), we do not discern in 12 U.S.C. § 1785 (b)(2)(A) an intention to displace traditional State regulation.

2004See id.

1994Commonwealth v. Federico, 383 Mass. 485, 488-489 (1981).

1990The standard to be applied in determining whether the supremacy clause requires that the State family law be preempted is whether the State law does “ ‘major damage’ to ‘clear and substantial’ federal interests.” Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, supra, quoting United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341, 352 (1966).

1990See Rose v. Rose, supra; Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46, 54 (1981); McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210, 220 (1981).