Conflict preemption bars state law that frustrates the purposes and objectives of federal regulation, even without an express preemptive clause or impossibility of dual compliance.
It requires identifying the federal objective obstructed.
Alternative Names:
Obstacle Preemption, Conflict Doctrine
Why it Matters?
Identifying a specific federal objective the state claim would frustrate is the analytical requirement, since general assertions that state liability interferes with regulation do not suffice. The strongest arguments involve regulatory schemes where the agency made a deliberate determination that a state claim would second-guess, such as approving specific labeling after considering the risk the plaintiff says should have been warned about.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What must the argument identify?
What is the strongest fact pattern?
