I 197 3). 7. This consti tution and the L 1 \\ s o i the Un ited Sta tes \\ hi ch ; h::lll b e 111~1de COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 75 :623 effectu ate a cong ressi onal occu pation of a pa rticular fi eld . eYen wher e there a re gaps in t he fed eral regul ato ry sc hem e. or to nullify state reg ula tion in confli ct with federal l eg islati on .~ The doctrin e thus sen·es to defin e sp heres of go,·ernmental aut ho rity wit hin the feder a l system. I t has been uti lized ext en-siYely sin ce

more »

... he federal regulatory ach·ance s of the :\ ew Deal period to mediate t he fr ictions t hat haYe attend ee! the stead\ ex ten sion of d eta iled fede ral r eg ulation into form erly exclusi,·e proYin ces oi the states. !' The Supreme Court, howenr. has not de,·elopecl a un ifo rm approac h to p r ee mpt ion: its dec isions in thi s a r ea take on an acl hoc, un p rin cip led quali ty. seem ingly be re ft of a ny co nsistent doctri nal basis. I t is t he purp ose of th is ':\ote to su n·ey th e preemption decision s for strand s of doct rin a l consistency and to exami n e the impact of the Burge r Court' s faYoralJ le di spcJsitinn to co ncurrent stat e-fede ral regulat ion on the preempt ion doctr ine.