Opinion ID: 72726
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The argument made in district

Text: court. When considering implied preemption, no presumpt io n exis t s ag ainst preemption. “Under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution, ‘[t]he relative importance to the State of its own law is not material when there is a conflict with 27 a valid federal law,’ for ‘any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.’” Lewis, 107 F.3d at 1502 (citation omitted). Because Plaintiff sued Defendants for exercising an option explicitly permitted by Congress, a conflict exists between state and federal law if Plaintiff goes forward with this state law claim of defective design. Taylor, 875 F.2d at 827 (“[A] state cannot impose common law 28 damages on individuals for doing what a federal act or regulation ‘authorized them to do.’”) (quoting Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 101 S.Ct. 1124, 1131 (1981)). Therefore, Plaintiff’s suit against Defendants for their exercise of an option provided to Defendants by FMVSS 208 conflicts with federal law and, thus, is preempted.