Which condition supports federal preemption over state law due to a comprehensive federal scheme?

• A. A comprehensive federal scheme requiring uniformity
• B. Local state sovereignty concerns
• C. Judicial innovation by federal courts
• D. Public opinion polling on regulation

Answer: (A)

When a nationwide regulatory scheme is designed to be uniform across all states, it can occupy the entire field, so state laws that would conflict with or undermine that scheme are preempted. This is field preemption: Congress intends to regulate the whole area with one consistent set of rules, making a uniform federal standard the controlling authority. That need for nationwide uniformity is what makes federal preemption the correct answer here.

Local sovereignty concerns describe situations where states retain power to govern themselves, which conflicts with the idea of a single nationwide rule that preempts state laws. Judicial innovation by federal courts isn’t the driving force behind preemption; while courts interpret laws, preemption typically arises from the legislature or the Constitution, not from courts creating new rules. Public opinion polling on regulation has no legal effect on the preemption of state law.