Legal Question: Can city Laws Trump state laws?

[ralph124c]

My question cencerns local laws and ordnances, in Massachusestts. If the state has a law regarding streets and roads, and a city has a law which contravenes the state law, which law would prevail in court?
Specifically, would a plaintiff win a case because of such a conflict?

[IAmNotSpartacus]

It will depend on the jurisdiction but most state vehicle codes will override any local ordinances. The state is free to tell to the municipality it can go further in restricting activity, but I am pretty sure that would need to be codified.

As an example, here in California, moving violations are a going to be violation of the Vehicle Code, parking violations will generally be a violation of the local Municipal Code.

[Shagnasty]

I may touch off a debate but state laws are usually the ultimate reference for most matters, especially the practical ones, in a federal system like ours. State laws are always going to trump city and town laws in the legal hierarchy although I am sure that some Gentleman's agreements have been worked out where some of those conflicts have been ignored. It gets more interesting in a federal system when state and federal laws conflict especially when it is intentional. The states are the 'boss' of the cities and towns that fall under them but the same is not true in the same way in the federal/state relationship.

[Hello Again]

It also depends on if it is possible to comply with both laws at the same time. For example, a city may have more protective employment laws than the state. That's fine, as long as the laws don't conflict with the state laws. Sometimes you will see the phrase "the state law is a floor, not a ceiling."

So let's say under the state law, you are forbidden from discrimination in hiring based on the following categories: race, sex, religion, national origin. But under City law, you are forbidden from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin AND real or perceived sexual orientation.

For the employer, the fact that the state does not protect sexual orientation, is no defense to a suit under the City law. They just can't be additionally sued for violating the state law.

[Chronos]

It gets more interesting in a federal system when state and federal laws conflict especially when it is intentional. The states are the 'boss' of the cities and towns that fall under them but the same is not true in the same way in the federal/state relationship.

The Constitution states that federal law trumps state law whenever they're in conflict. The real kicker is that it might not be an area where the federal government has jurisdiction to pass laws in the first place, but that would be an issue even without a conflicting state law. But if, say, a state passes a law that its citizens don't have to pay income tax, then that's clearly void, since the federal government does have the power to collect taxes.

[barbitu8]

Most states provide for "home rule," which means that a municipality may enact ordinances that have only local application, so long as it does not preempt a state law. The ordinance cannot contradict a state law. A problem may arise as to whether a state law preempts a local ordinance. Recently a law suit was brought in SC because a local ordinance proscribed smoking in certain areas (inside restaurants, for example). SC had passed a law prohibiting smoking in certain areas but that law did not include restaurants. The SC Supreme Court held that the state did not intend to preempt the area and that municipalities could enact more stringent prohibitions on smoking.

[Lumpy]

It's a very widespread principle that "cities are creatures of the state": they only exist distinct from counties and townships because of state laws allowing for incorporation. So the state can pretty much dictate on what terms cities are allowed to have their own ordinances.

[Hirka T'Bawa]

In Pharmacy, the rule is "The stricter law takes effect". So, what ever law is stronger is the one that you have to follow. I'm assuming this is the rule with most laws also.

However, the problem comes when there is an actual conflict, one law makes something legal, the other makes it illegal... That I don't know.

[barbitu8]

Originally Posted by Hirka T'Bawa

In Pharmacy, the rule is "The stricter law takes effect". So, what ever law is stronger is the one that you have to follow. I'm assuming this is the rule with most laws also.

However, the problem comes when there is an actual conflict, one law makes something legal, the other makes it illegal... That I don't know.

Well, not always. Did the state intend to preempt the field covered by the law? If it did in the smoking law, the state law, even though less strict than the municipality's, would vitiate the local law. The argument made in the smoking laws was that the state by specifically listing certain locales (hospitals, schools, etc.) intended that the prohibition apply only to those listed. The city maintained that the law did not prevent a municipality from adding additional locations.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by Hirka T'Bawa

However, the problem comes when there is an actual conflict, one law makes something legal, the other makes it illegal... That I don't know.

Can you give an example of a law that makes something legal?

[Chronos]

Can you give an example of a law that makes something legal?

Sure, for starters any law that repealed a previous ban. We've even got one of those in the US Constitution.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Can you give an example of a law that makes something legal?

One obvious example are the various states with "shall issue" gun permit laws, which depend on state preemption of local ordinances.

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Can you give an example of a law that makes something legal?

California SB420, Prop 215, etc.

[ralph124c]

Well, here is the actual issue:
the city refuses to pay a vehicle damage claim (car hit a pothole). The state law says that municipalities are liable for damage caused to private vehicles (by bad road conditions).
So, can the city be made to pay the claim?

[Bricker]

It's Dillon's Rule for many states, as opposed to the Cooley Doctrine.

Virginia is a strict Dillon's Rule state.

[Neptunian Slug]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

Well, here is the actual issue:
the city refuses to pay a vehicle damage claim (car hit a pothole). The state law says that municipalities are liable for damage caused to private vehicles (by bad road conditions).
So, can the city be made to pay the claim?

Well no one from the state is going to call the city and say, "pay up".

You'll need any attoney's advice as far as how to proceed with pursuing the claim.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

Well, here is the actual issue:
the city refuses to pay a vehicle damage claim (car hit a pothole). The state law says that municipalities are liable for damage caused to private vehicles (by bad road conditions).
So, can the city be made to pay the claim?

Since this is evidently a request for legal advice on a specific case, I am closing it.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator