preemption

Virginia has the largest known uranium deposit in the United States. Since its discovery in the 1980s the Virginia legislature has banned uranium mining. Unsurprisingly the land owner, Virginia Uranium, wants to mine. In Virginia Uranium v. Warren the Supreme Court will decide whether the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) preempts the ban.

The AEA allows states to “regulate activities for purposes other than protection against radiation hazards.” Virginia and Virginia Uranium agree uranium mining isn’t an “activity” per the AEA so states may regulate it for safety reasons. Uranium-ore milling and tailings storage are “activities” under the AEA so states can’t regulate them for safety reasons. Milling is the process of refining ore and tailings storage refers to the remaining (radioactive) material which must be stored.

Most of the Trump administration’s disagreements over protecting undocumented immigrants have been with local governments. But on March 6 the Trump administration filed a complaint against the State of California. The administration claims three California statutes aimed at protecting undocumented immigrants are preempted by federal immigration law. The administration asks the court to issue a preliminary injunction disallowing California from enforcing the statutes.

CSG Midwest
State law sets forth X, but some municipal ordinances set forth X+1 or 2. Or some, but not all municipalities in a given state, regulate smoking, bagging materials, minimum wages or myriad other measures. Which layer of law prevails? Which should?

The very simple question in Artis v. District of Columbia is what does it mean for a statute of limitations to “toll” under 28 U.S.C 1367(d)? The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed a Supreme Court amicus brief agreeing with the District of Columbia’s interpretation of “toll.”

A year after the fact, Stephanie Artis sued the District of Columbia in federal court bringing a number of federal and state law claims related to her termination as a code inspector. It took the federal district court over two and a half years to rule on her claims. It dismissed her sole federal claim as “facially deficient” and no longer had jurisdiction to decide the state law claims.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit invalidated a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rule that required non-commercial drone owners to register with the agency. 

The court held that the drone registration rule, known as the 2015 Registration Rule, violated the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which prohibits the FAA from issuing any rule or regulation of “model aircraft.”

The invalidated registration rule required all small drone operators to register each of their drones with the FAA before operating them outdoors. To complete the registration process, owners were required to provide the FAA with their contact information, pay a $5 registration fee, and mark a unique identifier number issued by the FAA on their drone.

Pages