Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law. The rules of preemption seek to restrict it to only where it is explicit or necessary. In the course of adjudicating cases, the issue of preemption may be heard in either state or federal court.
Michigan was the only state that voluntarily applied FDA preemption to its own state tort law through a regulatory compliance defense, having enacted this provision in 1995 to draw pharmaceutical companies to the state, but the law was controversial and efforts to repeal it were underway in 2009. [3]
Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on federalism, specifically with regards to the preemption powers of federal law over state laws. It sets the precedent that any state statutes having a "connection with" ERISA plans are superseded by ERISA, or any future substantially similar law that ...
Clear statement rules are commonly applied in areas implicating the structural constitution, such as federalism, sovereign immunity, nondelegation, preemption, or federal spending with strings attached. This is especially true when there is a strong interest against implicit abridgment of traditional understandings.
Questions of federal preemption "must be guided by two cornerstones of our pre-emption jurisprudence": "First, 'the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case.' Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr , 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Retail Clerks v.
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the pre-emption clause of the Medical Device Amendment bars state common-law claims that challenge the effectiveness or safety of a medical device marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration.
Pages in category "United States federal preemption case law" The following 29 pages are in this category, out of 29 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), was a unanimous case in which the Supreme Court of the United States used the federal preemption doctrine to strike down the Massachusetts Burma Law, a law that effectively prohibited Massachusetts' governmental agencies from buying goods and services from companies conducting business with Myanmar (Burma), essentially a secondary ...