Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

Holding that an express warranty was not a "requirement ... imposed under State law" because the obligation was imposed by the warrantor

New York State Blue Cross Plans v. Travelers Ins

Holding that a statute imposing a surcharge on "[p]atients served by commercial insurers providing in-patient hospital coverage on an expense-incurred basis, by self-insured funds directly reimbursing hospitals, and by certain workers' compensation, volunteer firefighters' benefit, ambulance workers' benefit, and no-fault motor vehicle insurance funds" . . . "cannot be said to make 'reference to' ERISA plans in any manner" because the surcharge applied "regardless of whether the commercial coverage or membership, respectively, [wa]s ultimately secured by an ERISA plan, private purchase, or otherwise"

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody

Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"

Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n

Holding that "nonapproved state regulation of occupational safety and health issues for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly preempted" by OSHA's standard

Jones v. Rath Packing Co.

Holding that the presumption is weaker, if triggered at all, where there is not a tradition of state legislation

Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.

Holding that state award of punitive damages to person injured in nuclear incident did not conflict with federal remedial scheme regulating safety aspects of nuclear energy

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting

Holding that Congress’s express reservation of state authority to impose certain civil sanctions means what it says

Fla. Avocado Growers v. Paul

Holding federal regulation concerning maturity of avocados did not preempt California regulation, where it was not impossible for growers to comply with both regulations

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

Holding that the clear statement rule may be satisfied where "the Act of Congress ... touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

Section 12900 - Short title

Section 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens

Authorizing the Attorney General to pursue injunctive relief and criminal sanctions in federal district court

Section 1324c - Penalties for document fraud

Criminalizing the failure to disclose that a person received a "fee or other remuneration" for assisting with false applications for immigration benefits

Section 1324b - Unfair immigration-related employment practices

Permitting the administrative law judge to award an attorney's fee to the prevailing party "if the losing party's argument is without reasonable foundation in law and fact"

Section 1171.5 - Legislative findings

Extending all protections under state law to those who have “been employed” in this state, which includes “all individuals regardless of immigration status”

Section 1871 - State laws and regulations