Congress enacts a federal statute establishing minimum safety standards for electrical appliances. Subsequently, a state passes a law imposing more stringent safety requirements for the same appliances. A manufacturer challenges the state law, claiming it is preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause. How are the courts most likely to rule?
The state law is preempted because state regulation on electrical appliances is forbidden by federal statute.
The state law is not preempted because it imposes stricter safety standards than federal law.
The state law is not preempted because federal law allows states to set their own safety requirements.
The state law is preempted because federal law occupies the regulatory field of electrical appliance safety.
The correct answer is that the state law is not preempted because it imposes stricter safety standards than federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law only when there is a direct conflict or when Congress has occupied the field. When a state law sets higher standards than federal law, it is generally allowed as long as it does not conflict with federal objectives.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does the Supremacy Clause mean in this context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can a state always impose stricter regulations than federal law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are examples of federal regulations that states must comply with?