Opinion ID: 2642598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal-Law Preemption

Text: ¶8. George argues that federal law preempts state law as to the transfer and division of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. In the field of domestic relations, federal law preempts state law only if: “(1) Congress has positively expressed its intent to preempt the state law and (2) the state law does major damage to a clear and substantial federal interest.” In re Guardianship of Holmes, 965 So. 2d 662, 665 (¶ 9) (Miss. 2007) (quoting Clardy v. ATS, Inc. Employee 4 Welfare Benefit Plan, 921 F. Supp. 394, 398 (N.D. Miss. 1996)). For the doctrine of preemption to be applied, a state law must exist to actually be preempted. George has not cited a relevant state law that should be preempted by the federal law pertaining to Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. As the Post-9/11 GI Bill and benefits therefrom are a wholly federal issue, there are not any related state laws. Therefore, preemption is not an issue; rather, we must simply apply federal law. George’s claim that federal law preempts state law regarding Post- 9/11 GI Bill benefits is without merit.