Law Commons^™

Protecting Local Authority In State Constitutions And Challenging Intrastate Preemption, Emily S.P. Baxter

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In recent years, state legislatures have increasingly passed laws that prohibit or preempt local action on a variety of issues, including fracking, LGBTQIA nondiscrimination, and workplace protections, among others. Often, these preemption laws are a direct response to action at the local level. States pass preemption laws either directly before or directly after a locality passes an ordinance on the same subject. Scholars have seen these preemptive moves as the outcome of the urban disadvantage in state and national government due to partisan gerrymandering.

Preemption may be a feature of our governing system, but it has also become a problematic …

States Empowering Plaintiff Cities, Eli Savit

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Across the country, cities are becoming major players in plaintiff’s-side litigation. With increasing frequency, cities, counties, and other municipalities are filing lawsuits to vindicate the public interest. Cities’ aggressive use of lawsuits, however, has been met with some skepticism from both scholars and states. At times, states have taken action—both legislative and via litigation—to preempt city-initiated suits.

This Article contends that states should welcome city-initiated public-interest lawsuits. Such litigation, this Article demonstrates, vindicates the principles of local control that cities exist to facilitate. What is more, a motivated plaintiff city can accomplish public-policy goals that are important not just to …

21st Century Cures Act: The Problem With Preemption In Light Of Deregulation, Megan C. Andersen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The 21st Century Cures Act introduced innovative changes to the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory processes. In an effort to address the slow, costly, and burdensome approval process for high-risk devices, the Cures Act modernized clinical trial data by allowing reviewers to determine whether devices merit expedited review and to consider post-market surveillance data in the premarket approval process. These changes will get life-saving devices to the people who need them faster than ever before. But the tradeoff is a greater risk of injury to the patient. The 2008 Supreme Court decision Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., held that any …

When Is An Agency A Court? A Modified Functional Approach To State Agency Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Nicholas Jackson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that courts should interpret 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which permits removal from state court to federal court, to allow removal from state administrative agencies when the agency performs “court-like functions.” Circuits that apply a literal interpretation of the statute and forbid removal from state agencies should adopt this “functional” approach. The functional approach, which this Note calls the McCullion-Floeter test, should be modified to comport with legislative intent and public policy considerations: first, state agency adjudications should not be removable when the adjudication requires technical expertise, which federal courts cannot obtain because they adjudicate cases in a …

A Tale Of Conflicting Sovereignties: The Case Against Tribal Sovereign Immunity And Federal Preemption Doctrines Preventing States' Enforcement Of Campaign Contribution Regulations On Indian Tribes, Paul Porter

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note will discuss whether Indian tribes can assert tribal sovereign immunity to avoid compliance with state campaign finance regulation and whether such regulations should be preempted by federal law. Tribal sovereign immunity is not an enshrined constitutional imperative; it exists only under federal common law and can be limited by the courts from blocking state suits to enforce campaign finance regulations against tribes. This Note will also argue that state campaign finance regulations should not be preempted by federal law because states have a compelling interest in protecting their political processes from corruption that outweighs tribal interests in flouting …

Federal Preemption Of Tort Claims Under Fifra: The Erosion Of A Defense, Valerie Watnick

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

With the growth of federal regulation in the last century, federal preemption of state law has been an evolving issue in the area of toxic torts litigation. The preemption doctrine occupies a particularly prominent place in the area of pesticide-related litigation as the judiciary has struggled to decide what, if any, tort claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972 ("FIFRA "), the federal statute governing the sale and labeling of pesticides in the United States. In Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv. Inc., 22 Cal. 4th 316, 93 Cal. Rptr2d 36 (2000), a case heard by …

Nlra Preemption Of State Law Actions For Wrongful Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy, Thomas Bean

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note considers the circumstances under which the NLRA should preempt state law tort suits for discharge in contravention of public policy by employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and by at-will employees. Part I discusses the rationale behind the preemption doctrine and outlines the tests the Supreme Court has adopted for determining when the NLRA preempts state laws. Part II argues that the specific rationale behind the Court's preemption tests are inapplicable to the typical public policy wrongful discharge action. Part III identifies the ways in which public policy wrongful discharge actions might infringe on the NLRA. It …

Erisa Preemption: Judicial Flexibility And Statutory Rigidity, Leon E. Irish, Harrison J. Cohen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article attempts to describe the ways in which, and the reasons why section 514(a) has caused the courts and Congress so much difficulty. Part I reviews the legislative history of section 514(a), with emphasis on the ambivalence Congress has shown toward its 1974 draftsmanship. Part II attempts to provide a coherent description of the case law that has developed under section 514(a). Part III completes the legislative history by examining the two instances in which experience compelled Congress to revise section 514. Finally, Part IV discusses examples of problems courts have faced when crafting a federal common law of …