Chapter 10.4 Federal Preemption

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§10.4 FEDERAL PREEMPTION

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that federal legislation has the power to preempt state law. Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 192 Wn.App. 316, 341, 368 P.3d 194 (citing Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U.S. 483, 490, 133 S.Ct. 1943, 186 L.Ed.2d 43 (2013)), rev'd on other grounds, 187 Wn.2d 346, 386 P.3d 1064 (2016). "Conflict preemption" occurs when (1) federal and state laws conflict, making compliance with both an impossibility, or (2) state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Snohomish County, 192 Wn.App. at 341 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L. Ed. 581 (1941)). In general, however, "state laws are not superseded by congressional legislation unless that is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." Id. (quoting McKee v. AT & T Corp., 164 Wn.2d 372, 387, 191 P.3d 845 (2008)). In Washington, there is a strong presumption against preemption. Id. (citing Nw. Wholesale, Inc. v. Pac. Organic Fruit, LLC, 184 Wn.2d 176, 184, 357 P.3d 650 (2015)).

Issues of federal preemption often arise when the assets in question are specifically governed by federal law, including, for example, retirement accounts governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829 (Sept. 2, 1974) (codified in part at 29 U.S.C. ch. 18), or life insurance policies governed by the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954 (FEGLIA), Pub. L. No. 83-598, 68 Stat. 736 (Aug. 17, 1954).

[Page 10-16]

In Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141, 121 S.Ct. 1322, 149 L.Ed.2d 264 (2001), the United States Supreme Court reviewed the issue of whether Washington's statutory automatic revocation of a beneficiary designation upon a divorce, RCW 11.07.010, was preempted by ERISA. In Egelhoff, the decedent failed to remove his former wife's name from the beneficiary designation form for his pension plan provided by his employer. The plan was governed by ERISA. Following his death, the plan paid out to the former spouse in accordance with the terms of the properly executed beneficiary designation form. The decedent's estate sued to recover the plan proceeds from the former spouse, citing the Washington statute, which automatically revoked a beneficiary designation upon the divorce of the parties. The Washington Court of Appeals and the Washington...