Federal preemption analysis determines the validity of state regulation that arguably conflicts with federal regulation. This Comment examines recent application of federal preemption analysis by the United States Supreme Court in Hirquierdo v. Hisquierdo, McCarty v. McCarty and Ridgway v. Ridgway. Because these decisions involve state marital property law and various federal benefit schemes, they illustrate the Burger Court's approach to the federal preemption of largely unrelated state regulation. The Comment concludes that where the goals of state and federal regulation differ. orthodox preemption doctrine should be modified to include an assessment of the relative importance of the state and federal interests at stake if unintended shifts in regulatory power are to be avoided.
James A. Riddle,
Preemption of Reconcilable State Regulation: Federal Benefit Schemes v. State Marital Property Law,
34 Hastings L.J. 685
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol34/iss3/6