The case has at its focus the issue of federal preemption.
He sought a federal preemption of state laws.
The Defendants argue protection under federal preemption because federal law preempts state-law.
Michael S. Greve focuses on constitutional law and federalism, including federal preemption.
Therefore the states are free to enact their own unique laws on anything not within the purview of federal preemption.
The legislation was repealed in February 2007, after state representatives were advised that it probably would not withstand judicial scrutiny due to federal preemption.
Specific exceptions to the general rule of federal preemption exist such as some contract law, escheat law, and insurance law.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds of federal preemption and substantive due process.
Questions of federal preemption "must be guided by two cornerstones of our pre-emption jurisprudence":
Furthermore, the case set the precedent of only allowing state regulation of the tribes rarely and with federal preemption only.
