State laws that limit local fiscal authority to raise and spend revenue—known as tax and expenditure limits (TELs)—force local governments to turn to alternative forms of revenue generation, which often means fines and fees. Research shows that people of color and residents who have low income are disproportionately affected by fines and fees, which can “affect credit scores, plunge families into debt, result in loss of a driver’s license, or lead to incarceration”—all outcomes that negatively affect health. Read more from Watts, MH, Michel, KH. Equitable Enforcement to Achieve Health Equity: An Introductory Guide for Policymakers and Practitioners. ChangeLab Solutions. July 2020. https://www.changelabsolutions.org/product/equitable-enforcement-achieve-health-equity.

During the time of COVID-19, restrictions on municipal revenues forced cities and counties to cut services, lay off and furlough employees, and mothball capital projects, which had consequences for local employment, business contracts, and overall investment in the economy and community. Read more from Haddow, K, Carr, D, Winig, BD, Adler, S. Preemption, Public Health, and Equity in the Time of COVID-19. August 2020. https://www.publichealthlawwatch.org/covid19-policy-playbook.

Preemption of local authority to raise and spend money often results in the loss or diversion of municipal revenues, harming urban, suburban, and rural communities alike. Read more from Bravo, N, Warner, ME, Aldag, A. Grabbing market share, Taming rogue cities and Crippling Counties: Views from the field on state preemption of local authority. Dept. of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. March 2020. http://cms.mildredwarner.org/p/298.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, many state legislatures imposed limits on public health authority. One study found that such limits were associated with higher death rates. The study concluded that the motivation behind limiting public health authority was more related to politicization and political competition rather than to pushback against specific COVID-19 public health actions. It also showed that states with unified Republican control (i.e. both legislature and governorship under Republican control) were the most likely to limit public health emergency authority.

Read more from:

• Haddow K, Carr D, Winig BD, Adler S. Preemption, public health, and equity in the time of COVID-19. In: S Burris, S Guia, L Gable, DE Levin, WE Parmet, NP Terry, eds. Assessing Legal Responses to COVID-19. Boston: Public Health Law Watch; 2020.

• Xue Zhang, Mildred E. Warner & Gen Meredith, Factors Limiting U.S. Public Health Emergency Authority During COVID-19, 20 Int'l J. Env't Res. & Pub. Health 12554 (2023).
  

Research shows that preemption of indoor dining closure laws dining may have increased the spread of COVID-19 as cities with indoor dining closure laws saw COVID-19 case rates decrease by 55% over 6 weeks when compared to cities that were preempted from passing such laws. Read more from Mahl-Schnake, A, O’Leary, G, Mullachery, P, Vaidya, V, Connor, G, Rollins, H, Kolker, K, Diez, R, Ana, V, Bilal, U. The Impact of Keeping Indoor Dining Closed on COVID-19 Rates Among Large US Cities. Epidemiology. March 2022;33(2):200-208. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001444.   https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2022/03000/The_Impact_of_Keeping_Indoor_Dining_Closed_on.7.aspx.

A series of case studies examining how state preemption of local housing policies has affected crisis response and recovery efforts during COVID-19 found that:

• Local governments failed to consider adopting local policies that would conflict with existing state preemption laws even if such policies could help stabilize housing for at-risk renters.

• Local policies that were not directly preempted were nonetheless “chilled” and not pursued due to concerns that acting would spark legal challenges or new preemption efforts at the state level.

Read more from Greene S, Ramakrishnan K, Morales-Burnett J. State Preemption of Local Housing Protections: Lessons from a Pandemic. Urban Institute. September 2020. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/state-preemption-local-housing-protections.

A research brief found that in states with more preemption laws, both local and state governments were substantially less likely to adopt innovative policy responses to COVID-19. Read more from Treskon M, Docter B. Preemption and Its Impact on Policy Responses to COVID-19. Urban Institute. September 2020. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/preemption-and-its-impact-policy-responses-covid-19.

Widespread misuse of state preemption has chilled local policymaking, forced localities to start from behind when responding to the pandemic, and prevented effective, timely responses to rapidly evolving public health and economic threats. Read more from Haddow, K, Carr, D, Winig, BD, Adler, S. Preemption, Public Health, and Equity in the Time of COVID-19. August 2020. https://www.publichealthlawwatch.org/covid19-policy-playbook.

When the Michigan state legislature passed House Bill 4052 (2015), nicknamed the “Death Star Bill,” it preempted local governments from implementing a range of policies that would benefit workers, including minimum wages, fair scheduling regulations, paid leave mandates, and prevailing wage laws. Fair scheduling laws would have benefited 38,702 retail and food service workers in Detroit, 77% of which are Black. Read more from Wolfe, J, Hickey, S, Kamper, D, Cooper, D. Preempting progress in the heartland: State lawmakers in the Midwest prevent shared prosperity and racial, gender, and immigrant justice by interfering in local policymaking. Economic Policy Institute. October 2021. https://www.epi.org/publication/preemption-in-the-midwest/.

When the Missouri and Iowa state legislatures preempted minimum wage increases in Kansas City, St. Louis, and various Iowa counties, they denied pay raises to hundreds of thousands of workers, a greater proportion of which are women or workers of color. Read more from Wolfe, J, Hickey, S, Kamper, D, Cooper, D. Preempting progress in the heartland: State lawmakers in the Midwest prevent shared prosperity and racial, gender, and immigrant justice by interfering in local policymaking. Economic Policy Institute. October 2021. https://www.epi.org/publication/preemption-in-the-midwest/.

The abuse of preemption that has suppressed communities of color in the Midwest has its roots in the segregation policies implemented in response to the Great Migration. Research shows that the abuse of state preemption in the Midwest is also widespread, second only to the South. State lawmakers in the Midwest, who are majority white and male, have used preemption to deny local governments the ability to improve job quality and housing stability through minimum wage increases, fair scheduling laws, and paid leave requirements. These preemptive laws disproportionately affect people of color, women, immigrants, and workers who are paid low wages. Read more from Wolfe, J, Hickey, S, Kamper, D, Cooper, D. Preempting progress in the heartland: State lawmakers in the Midwest prevent shared prosperity and racial, gender, and immigrant justice by interfering in local policymaking. Economic Policy Institute. October 2021. https://www.epi.org/publication/preemption-in-the-midwest/.

When Texas preempted local paid sick leave laws, they excluded millions of workers – overwhelmingly people of color – from the opportunities and health benefits that those laws would provide. Read more from Blair H, Cooper D, Wolfe J, Worker J. Preempting progress: State interference in local policymaking prevents people of color, women, and low-income workers from making ends meet in the South. Economic Policy Institute. September 2020. https://www.epi.org/publication/preemption-in-the-south.

When the Alabama state legislature preempted a minimum wage increase in Birmingham, Alabama, they denied pay raises to an estimated 65,000 low-wage workers, disproportionately harming Black people and women. Read more from Blair H, Cooper D, Wolfe J, Worker J. Preempting progress: State interference in local policymaking prevents people of color, women, and low-income workers from making ends meet in the South. Economic Policy Institute. September 2020. https://www.epi.org/publication/preemption-in-the-south.

Research shows that the abuse of state preemption is particularly prevalent in the South, where preemption is often a continuation of “state-sanctioned policies and practices rooted in racism and designed to uphold white supremacy” by suppressing the political power of communities of color.  Time and time again, overwhelmingly white, male, and conservative state legislatures have blocked the ability of local communities – often Black and Brown communities – from responding to the needs and values of their residents. These communities have been prevented from enacting policies on a multitude of work-related issues, such as minimum wages, fair scheduling laws, paid leave programs, local hire laws, prevailing wage laws, and other workplace protections. Read more from Blair H, Cooper D, Wolfe J, Worker J. Preempting progress: State interference in local policymaking prevents people of color, women, and low-income workers from making ends meet in the South. Economic Policy Institute. September 2020. https://www.epi.org/publication/preemption-in-the-south.

A 2024 paper examined state takeovers across four main policy areas traditionally reserved to localities, including education (e.g. local school districts); finances (e.g. economically distressed municipalities); the criminal legal system (e.g. policing, prosecutors, and judges), and voting (e.g. local election administration) and showed that such state interference increasingly is being used in majority-Black cities. Evidence to date suggests that these state takeovers are not only anti-democratic but also result in suppressing local Black political power and undermining the political will of Black voters. Read more from Sandhya Kajeepeta, When the State Takes Over: How State Officials Usurping Local Control Threatens Local Black Political Power, 52 Fordham Urb. L.J.

State laws preempting sanctuary policies can create hostile environments, deterring immigrants from seeking critical health care and social services, or even prohibit those services from being offered altogether. These laws may also have a chilling effect on accessing other health-related resources, including basic utilities (e.g., electricity and water), healthy foods, and public recreation spaces. Preemption of sanctuary policies that protect and support immigrants likely contribute to negative physical and mental health outcomes for those populations.

Read more from:

•  Hall, M, Mann-Jackson, L, Rhodes, S.  State Preemption of Local Immigration “Sanctuary” Policies: Legal Considerations. Am J of Public Health. 2021;111. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306018. 

• Mann-Jackson L, Simán FM, Hall MA, Alonzo J, Linton JM, Rhodes SD. State Preemption of Municipal Laws and Policies that Protect Immigrant Communities: Impact on Latine Health and Well-Being in North Carolina. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing. 2022;59. doi:10.1177/00469580221087884. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00469580221087884.

Research suggests that taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with reductions in their purchase. While research establishes that sugar-sweetened beverages increase the risk for cardiometabolic diseases and other maladies, a number of states have nonetheless preempted local governments from levying taxes to discourage their consumption.

Read more from:

• Petimar, J., Gibson, L. A., Yan, J., Bleich, S. N., Mitra, N., Trego, M. L., Lawman, H. G., & Roberto, C. A. (Accepted/In press). Sustained Impact of the Philadelphia Beverage Tax on Beverage Prices and Sales Over 2 Years. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.12.012. Colchero, M. A, Popkin, B, Rivera, J, Ng, S. W. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ. 2016;352. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6704.

• Malik, V, Hu, F. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Cardiometabolic Health: An Update of the Evidence. Nutrients. 2019;11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081840.

• Crosbie, E, Pomeranz, J, Wright, K, Hoeper, S, Schmidt, L. State Preemption: An Emerging Threat to Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation. Am J of Public Health. January 2021;111. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306062.

A case study explored how some states have preempted local governments from restricting natural gas appliances, the use of which has been linked to a number of negative health effects, including exposure to fine particulate matter, carcinogens, and other pollutants linked to respiratory illness. Read more from Gibbs, M, Hsain, Z, Reagan, E, Wolfman, S, & Zaccarin, A-M. Overcoming state level preemption to electrify new buildings: A Philadelphia case study. Journal of Science Policy & Governance. 2022;21(01). doi:10.38126/jspg210104. https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG210104.

In one study, infants born to mothers living near fracking sites were 25% more likely to have low birth weight, and their average birth weight also declined significantly. State preemption of local fracking bans may be linked to negative health outcomes for infants. Read more from Currie, J, Greenstone, M, Meckel, K. Hydraulic fracturing and infant health: New evidence from Pennsylvania. Science Advances. 2017;3(12). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1603021. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1603021.

Research has debunked the claim that state preemption is necessary to prevent a “patchwork” of local laws inside one state from harming residents, businesses, and consumers. To the contrary, analysis shows that people who use the patchwork argument to support preemption are generally arguing against any regulation at all, not against local variation. Read more from Treskon M, Marotta J, Rajasekaran P, Ramakrishan K, Shroyer A, Greene S. Do the Effects of a Regulatory Patchwork Justify State Preemption of Local Laws? Urban Institute. January 2021. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/do-effects-regulatory-patchwork-justify-state-preemption-local-laws