The federal government enacts a regulation that sets a maximum allowable level of a specific pollutant in water sources. Subsequently, a state passes a law requiring a lower maximum level for the same pollutant within its borders. Affected companies argue that the state law conflicts with federal regulation and should be preempted under the Supremacy Clause. What is the most likely outcome?
The state law is valid because states are allowed to implement stricter environmental standards than those established by federal law.
The state law is preempted and invalid because it conflicts with federal regulation.
The state must align its standards with federal regulations or face federal enforcement actions.
Both state and federal laws are invalid due to inconsistency in regulation.
Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws that establish stricter environmental standards than federal regulations are generally permissible unless federal law expressly prohibits stricter standards or fully occupies the regulatory field. In environmental law, states are often allowed to implement more stringent measures to further 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 is the Supremacy Clause?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does federal preemption work in environmental law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why are states allowed to set stricter environmental regulations than the federal government?