Opinion ID: 2634504
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Doctrine of Implied Preemption

Text: As the United States Supreme Court has stated: We have recognized that a federal statute implicitly overrides state law either when the scope of a statute indicates that Congress intended federal law to occupy a field exclusively, English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78-79, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990), or when state law is in actual conflict with federal law. We have found implied conflict pre-emption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements, id., at 79, 110 S.Ct. 2270, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287, 115 S.Ct. 1483, 131 L.Ed.2d 385 (1995). Thus, HRS § 432E-6 will be deemed preempted if it conflicts with § 1132(a) (conflict preemption) or if Congress intended ERISA to occupy the entire field of HMO regulation (field preemption). Cf. Casumpang v. ILWU, Local 142, 94 Hawai'i 330, 339, 13 P.3d 1235, 1244 (2000) (Traditionally, federal preemption cases have been grouped into three categories: (1) express preemption; (2) implied preemption; and (3) conflict preemption.).