City of New York v. Job-Lot Pushcart, 88 N.Y.2d 163 (1996)
A federal law preempts a state or local law only when Congress expressly states its intent to preempt, when the federal law is so pervasive it occupies the entire field, or when the state or local law conflicts with the federal law, making compliance with both impossible or frustrating the federal law’s purpose.
Summary
New York City sought to enforce its Administrative Code, which regulates the sale of toy guns. JA-RU, Inc., a toy gun distributor, argued that the city’s law was preempted by the Federal Toy Gun Law. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Federal Toy Gun Law did not preempt the city’s regulations because Congress did not express a clear intent to occupy the entire field, and compliance with both laws was possible. The court reasoned that the local law complemented the federal law’s purpose of ensuring public safety.
Facts
New York City Administrative Code § 10-131(g) prohibits the sale, possession, or use of toy guns that substantially resemble actual firearms unless they are not blue, black, silver, or aluminum, bear an identifiable trade name, and contain a solid plug in the barrel. The City brought an action against defendants, including JA-RU, Inc., alleging violations of this law. JA-RU distributes toy guns that comply with federal regulations requiring a “blaze orange solid plug permanently affixed to the muzzle end of the barrel.” The toy guns confiscated from the defendants duplicated semiautomatic assault pistols, were black, and lacked manufacturer markings.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court (trial court) granted a preliminary injunction against the defendants, preventing them from selling toy guns in violation of the Administrative Code, and denied JA-RU’s motion, declaring that the Administrative Code was not preempted by federal law. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether the Supreme Court’s order was properly made.
Issue(s)
Whether the Federal Toy Gun Law, 15 U.S.C. § 5001, preempts New York City Administrative Code § 10-131(g), which regulates the sale, possession, or use of toy guns.
Holding
No, because Congress did not expressly or impliedly preempt local regulation of the markings on toy guns, and the conditions set forth in Administrative Code § 10-131 (g) are not incompatible or inconsistent with those provided in the Federal Toy Gun Law because compliance with both is not impossible.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that preemption occurs in three ways: (1) express preemption, where the federal statute explicitly states its intent to preempt state law; (2) implied preemption, where the federal scheme is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state regulation; and (3) conflict preemption, where the state law conflicts with the federal law, making compliance with both impossible or frustrating the federal law’s objectives. Here, the preemption provision in the Federal Toy Gun Law only supersedes state or local laws that “provide for markings or identification inconsistent with” its terms (15 USC § 5001 [g]).
The court found no express preemption because the Federal Toy Gun Law only explicitly preempts state regulation of replicas of antique collector firearms, B-B guns, paint ball guns, or pellet-firing air guns. The limited scope of the preemption clause indicated that Congress did not intend to supersede all local regulation of markings on toy guns.
There was no implied preemption, as evidenced by the legislative history. Senator Dole stated that the preemption section had been modified to accommodate a new California law, showing that Congress did not intend a pervasive, preemptive regulatory scheme.
Finally, there was no conflict preemption because compliance with both laws was possible. The court noted that it is feasible to manufacture a toy gun that complies with both the federal and local laws, and compliance with both laws furthers the intent of Congress and achieves the public safety objective underlying each measure.
The Court also emphasized that states are the natural guardians of public safety and that unless Congress clearly intends to preempt state police powers, state laws should not be superseded. Quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, the Court reiterated that state police powers are not superseded by a federal act unless Congress manifestly and clearly intends to do so.
In conclusion, the court determined that New York City’s law could coexist with the Federal Toy Gun Law, and the city’s regulations were therefore not preempted.