In the United States, people live under two different legal systems at the same time: federal law and state law. Most of the time they work together smoothly. But sometimes they clash—on issues like marijuana, gun regulations, immigration enforcement, or environmental rules. When that happens, a natural question comes up:
Who actually has the final say: Washington, D.C., or the states?
The answer comes from the U.S. Constitution, especially the ideas of federalism and the Supremacy Clause. Understanding these concepts makes it much easier to see why some laws are decided nationally while others are left to each state.
How Power Is Divided: The Basic Idea of Federalism
The United States is built on federalism, which means power is shared between two levels of government:
-
The federal government (Congress, the President, and federal agencies)
-
The state governments (governors, state legislatures, state courts)
The Constitution does not give the federal government unlimited power. Instead, it gives Washington specific, listed powers and leaves the rest to the states.
These specific federal powers include things like:
-
Regulating interstate and international commerce
-
Coining money
-
Maintaining armed forces and declaring war
-
Handling immigration and naturalization
-
Making treaties and foreign policy
Anything not given to the federal government and not forbidden to the states is generally left to the states. This idea is reinforced in the Tenth Amendment, which says that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people.
That’s why states control most of the “everyday life” issues:
-
Criminal law and policing
-
Property and contract law
-
Family law (marriage, divorce, adoption)
-
Education and schools
-
Many health and safety rules
So far, that sounds simple: the federal government does national things, and states handle local matters. The complexity begins when their laws overlap.
The Supremacy Clause: Why Federal Law Usually Wins Conflicts
Even though states keep many powers, the Constitution includes a crucial rule called the Supremacy Clause. It’s found in Article VI and says, in essence:
The Constitution and federal laws made under it are the “supreme law of the land”. State judges are bound by them, even if state laws say something different.
This means that when a valid federal law conflicts directly with a state law, the federal law wins. Lawyers call this preemption.
There are a few key points hidden in that statement:
-
The federal law must be constitutional—Congress can’t just do anything it wants.
-
The federal law must be a real conflict with state law, not just different policy preferences.
-
If there is a conflict, state laws that contradict federal law are invalid to the extent of the conflict.
So in a fight between a valid federal law and a state law covering the same subject, federal law has the final say.
When Federal Law Preempts State Law
Federal “preemption” comes in a few forms, but you don’t need the legal jargon to understand the idea.
Sometimes Congress says clearly in a statute that federal rules replace or override any state rules in a particular area. Other times, even if Congress doesn’t say it outright, courts decide that federal law occupies the field so completely that there’s no room for state rules, or that complying with both federal and state law at the same time is impossible.
Examples in everyday life include:
-
Airline safety and routes – mostly federal.
-
Prescription drug labels – heavily controlled by federal law.
-
Immigration and citizenship rules – federal standards dominate, though states still manage some related areas like driver’s licenses or benefits.
In these areas, if a state tries to set rules that contradict what Congress or federal agencies have decided, courts often strike down the state laws as preempted.
When State Law Still Matters (Even Alongside Federal Law)
Preemption does not mean states are powerless. There are many situations where both federal and state laws operate together, and sometimes state rules can be stricter than federal rules as long as they don’t conflict.
For example:
-
The federal government may set minimum workplace safety standards, but a state can go further and add additional safety protections.
-
Federal law might set baseline environmental rules, while a state adopts tougher pollution controls within its borders.
-
There may be federal civil rights protections, and a state adds its own civil rights statute providing even stronger remedies.
In these cases, a person or business may have to follow both sets of rules. As long as it’s possible to comply with both, there is no direct conflict, and preemption doesn’t apply.
What Happens When Federal and State Laws Clash in Real Life?
When conflicts occur, they’re usually resolved in the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say.
Here’s how it typically plays out:
-
A person or business says a state law is invalid because a federal law already covers that area.
-
Or a state challenges a federal law or regulation as going beyond the powers the Constitution gives to Washington.
-
Lawsuits go through the federal court system.
-
The Supreme Court may eventually decide whether the federal government or the state has the stronger claim in that specific situation.
Over time, Supreme Court decisions create a body of case law that clarifies where state power ends and federal power begins—but it is an ongoing process, not a one-time answer.
Areas Where the Balance Is Especially Tense
Certain topics repeatedly highlight the tension between federal and state power.
Marijuana laws are a classic example. Under federal law, marijuana remains an illegal controlled substance. At the same time, many states have legalized it for medical or recreational use. The federal government can still, in theory, enforce its own law, but in practice it has sometimes chosen not to prioritize enforcement in states that have regulated it. That creates a strange situation where something is legal under state law but illegal under federal law at the same time.
Gun regulations are another area. The federal government sets some nationwide rules, such as background checks for certain purchases, but states add their own restrictions or permissions. Legal disputes often ask whether a state’s gun law conflicts with federal statutes or constitutional rights.
Immigration enforcement also raises questions. The federal government has primary authority over who may enter and stay in the country. Some states and cities want to assist federal enforcement more aggressively; others want to limit their involvement. Courts then decide how far states can go without interfering with federal authority.
In each of these areas, the same question keeps returning: does the state law complement federal law, or does it contradict it? If courts decide it contradicts federal law in a field where Congress has clear authority, the federal rule wins.
Can States Ever Resist Federal Law?
There is a popular idea that states can simply “nullify” a federal law they don’t like. Under current constitutional understanding, that is not correct. Since the Civil War and a long line of Supreme Court decisions, it has been clear that:
-
States cannot legally declare a federal law unconstitutional on their own and ignore it.
-
States cannot block federal officials from enforcing valid federal law.
However, there is a difference between not obeying federal law and not helping to enforce it. The federal government generally can’t force state officials to carry out federal programs. This is called the “anti-commandeering” principle. So a state might refuse to use its own police or resources to enforce a federal rule, but it still cannot stop federal agents from doing their job.
Who Has the Final Say?
In theory, the chain of authority looks like this:
-
The Constitution is the ultimate source of law.
-
When Congress passes a law within its constitutional powers, that federal law is supreme over conflicting state laws.
-
When there is doubt about whether Congress has that power, or whether a state law is preempted, the federal courts—and finally the U.S. Supreme Court—decide.
So the true “final say” belongs to the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Federal laws that follow the Constitution outrank conflicting state laws. Where the Constitution leaves room for states to act, and Congress has not clearly taken that space, state laws can and do control.
Why This Balance Matters to Everyday People
Understanding federal vs. state power is not just for lawyers or politicians. It affects ordinary life in many ways:
-
The rights you have at work, at school, or with the police may come from a mix of federal and state rules.
-
Whether a controversial policy can change nationwide or only state by state depends on who has constitutional authority over that subject.
-
When you see headlines about lawsuits between states and the federal government, you now know they are really arguments about who gets to make the final decision in that area.
The U.S. system is intentionally complex. The framers of the Constitution wanted power divided so no single level of government could easily dominate. The price of that protection is ongoing tension and court battles over where the line should be drawn.
But at the end of the day, the rule is simple to remember: valid federal law, grounded in the Constitution, is supreme over conflicting state law—yet states retain wide authority everywhere the Constitution leaves space for them to govern.
