lens presumption in California

2021Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929, 936 .) “Implied preemption, for its part, may be found ‘(i) when it 9 is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”’” (Solus, at p. 332; accord, Parks, at p. 3

2018Ultimately, 'what constitutes a "sufficient obstacle [for a finding of implied preemption] is a matter of judgment, to be informed by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects." ' " ( Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298 , 312, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 .) "We 'conduct[ ] the search for congressional intent through the lens of a presumption against preemption. [Citations.] The presumption is founded on "respect for the States as 'independent sovereigns in our federal system' "; that respect requires courts "to assume t

2021(Quesada, at p. 308; Jankey v. Lee (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1038, 1048 .) “Where, as here, preemption turns on questions of law such as the meaning of a preemption clause or the ascertainment of congressional intent, our review is de novo.” (Roberts, at p. 142; accord, People v. Superior Court (Cal Cartage Transportation Express, LLC) (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 619 , 627; see Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077, 1089, fn. 10 [“federal preemption presents a pure question of law”].) C.

2018Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines." ( Quesada, supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 308 , 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 .) Implied preemption, for its part, may be found "(i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state

2021Preemption Principles and Standard of Review “ ‘ “The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional choice-of-law rule, makes federal law paramount, and vests Congress with the power to preempt state law.” [Citations.] Similarly, federal agencies, acting pursuant to authorization from Congress, can issue regulations that override state requirements. [Citations.] Preemption is foremost a question of congressional intent: did Congress, expressly or implicitly, seek to displace state law?’ ” (Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 31

2021Preemption Principles and Standard of Review “ ‘ “The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional choice-of-law rule, makes federal law paramount, and vests Congress with the power to preempt state law.” [Citations.] Similarly, federal agencies, acting pursuant to authorization from Congress, can issue regulations that override state requirements. [Citations.] Preemption is foremost a question of congressional intent: did Congress, expressly or implicitly, seek to displace state law?’ ” (Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 31

2021Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929, 936 .) “Implied preemption, for its part, may be found ‘(i) when it 9 is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”’” (Solus, at p. 332; accord, Parks, at p. 3

2021Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929, 936 .) “Implied preemption, for its part, may be found ‘(i) when it 9 is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”’” (Solus, at p. 332; accord, Parks, at p. 3

2018General preemption principles " 'The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional choice-of-law rule, makes federal law paramount, and vests Congress with the power to preempt state law.' [Citations.] Similarly, federal agencies, acting pursuant to authorization from Congress, can issue regulations that override state requirements. [Citations.] Preemption is foremost a question of congressional intent: did Congress, expressly or implicitly, seek to displace state law?" ( Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298 , 307-308, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 ,

2018General preemption principles " 'The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution establishes a constitutional choice-of-law rule, makes federal law paramount, and vests Congress with the power to preempt state law.' [Citations.] Similarly, federal agencies, acting pursuant to authorization from Congress, can issue regulations that override state requirements. [Citations.] Preemption is foremost a question of congressional intent: did Congress, expressly or implicitly, seek to displace state law?" ( Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 298 , 307-308, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 ,

2018Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines." ( Quesada, supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 308 , 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 .) Implied preemption, for its part, may be found "(i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state

2018Congress may expressly preempt state law through an explicit preemption clause, or courts may imply preemption under the field, conflict, or obstacle preemption doctrines." ( Quesada, supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 308 , 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 505 , 361 P.3d 868 .) Implied preemption, for its part, may be found "(i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state

2015(E.g., Wyeth v. Levine, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 565 ; Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431, 449 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 687 , *313 125 S.Ct. 1788 ]; Brown v. Mortensen, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1060, 1064.) The presumption is founded on “respect for the States as ‘independent sovereigns in our federal system’ that respect requires courts “to assume that ‘Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.’ ” (Wyeth, at p. 565, fn. 3.) The strength of the presumption is heightened in areas where the subject matter has been the long-standing subject of state regulation in the firs

2015(E.g., Wyeth v. Levine, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 565 ; Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431, 449 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 687 , *313 125 S.Ct. 1788 ]; Brown v. Mortensen, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1060, 1064.) The presumption is founded on “respect for the States as ‘independent sovereigns in our federal system’ that respect requires courts “to assume that ‘Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.’ ” (Wyeth, at p. 565, fn. 3.) The strength of the presumption is heightened in areas where the subject matter has been the long-standing subject of state regulation in the firs

2015(E.g., Wyeth v. Levine, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 565 ; Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431, 449 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 687 , *313 125 S.Ct. 1788 ]; Brown v. Mortensen, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1060, 1064.) The presumption is founded on “respect for the States as ‘independent sovereigns in our federal system’ that respect requires courts “to assume that ‘Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.’ ” (Wyeth, at p. 565, fn. 3.) The strength of the presumption is heightened in areas where the subject matter has been the long-standing subject of state regulation in the firs

2015(E.g., Wyeth v. Levine, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 565 ; Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431, 449 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 687 , *313 125 S.Ct. 1788 ]; Brown v. Mortensen, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1060, 1064.) The presumption is founded on “respect for the States as ‘independent sovereigns in our federal system’ that respect requires courts “to assume that ‘Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.’ ” (Wyeth, at p. 565, fn. 3.) The strength of the presumption is heightened in areas where the subject matter has been the long-standing subject of state regulation in the firs

2015(E.g., Wyeth v. Levine, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 565 ; Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431, 449 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 687 , *313 125 S.Ct. 1788 ]; Brown v. Mortensen, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1060, 1064.) The presumption is founded on “respect for the States as ‘independent sovereigns in our federal system’ that respect requires courts “to assume that ‘Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.’ ” (Wyeth, at p. 565, fn. 3.) The strength of the presumption is heightened in areas where the subject matter has been the long-standing subject of state regulation in the firs

2015(E.g., Wyeth v. Levine, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 565 ; Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431, 449 [ 161 L.Ed.2d 687 , *313 125 S.Ct. 1788 ]; Brown v. Mortensen, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 1060, 1064.) The presumption is founded on “respect for the States as ‘independent sovereigns in our federal system’ that respect requires courts “to assume that ‘Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.’ ” (Wyeth, at p. 565, fn. 3.) The strength of the presumption is heightened in areas where the subject matter has been the long-standing subject of state regulation in the firs

2015Ultimately, “what constitutes a ‘sufficient obstacle [for a finding of implied preemption] is a matter of judgment, to be informed by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects.’ ” (Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 992 , italics omitted, quoting Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000) 530 U.S. 363, 373 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 352 , 120 S.Ct. 2288 ].) Historically, the United States Supreme Court and this court have conducted the search for congressional intent through the lens of a presumption against preemption.

2015Ultimately, “what constitutes a ‘sufficient obstacle [for a finding of implied preemption] is a matter of judgment, to be informed by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects.’ ” (Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 992 , italics omitted, quoting Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000) 530 U.S. 363, 373 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 352 , 120 S.Ct. 2288 ].) Historically, the United States Supreme Court and this court have conducted the search for congressional intent through the lens of a presumption against preemption.