State preemption is a legal doctrine that lets higher government levels, such as state legislatures, restrict or invalidate local ordinances. It can be found in many policy areas, including education, labor, housing, and environmental rights. However, over the last decade, the doctrine has become a powerful tool used to consolidate power, often harming vulnerable groups. In 2023, over 650 preemption bills were introduced nationwide, broadly limiting local authorities’ ability to legislate.
Impact on human rights
State preemption in the United States has historical roots in efforts to constrain Black communities from gaining access to power and wealth after the Civil War. During Reconstruction, the task of establishing racial equality faced backlash from white conservatives who used disenfranchisement, retrenchment, and preemption to regain power. Today, these tactics persist in every US state, but they are particularly prevalent in the Deep South.
Preemption disproportionately affects marginalized communities, including people of color, women, and people of low socioeconomic status concentrated in cities. For example, it has been used in Southern states to target progressive policies around fair wages, paid leave, and affordable housing, while also undermining civil rights protections and nullifying local efforts to address systemic inequalities. Preemption erodes democracy by overriding local referendums, suppressing voting and political participation, and silencing marginalized communities. For cities like Atlanta, which declared itself a Human Rights City in 2022, state interference threatens its commitment to upholding the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
In the Deep South, state preemption constrains the ability of local governments to respond to unique economic and social conditions, ultimately prioritizing corporate interests over workers’ rights in terms of lower wages, fewer benefits, and limited workplace protections for many workers. Moreover, it disproportionately harms low-wage workers, particularly in majority-Black urban areas. Powerful lobbying groups, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), play a significant role in coordinating and advancing preemptive policies: ALEC-backed “Right to Work” laws, for example, weaken or outright prohibit unions, disproportionately affecting workers in Southern states with a history of racial and economic inequality.
Some examples illustrate these points. As of March 2025, states like Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi have no state minimum wage laws. Others, such as Georgia and Tennessee, ban local governments from setting higher minimum wages, even when local cost-of-living pressures warrant higher compensation. Similarly, in Mississippi, the city of Jackson’s efforts to implement enhanced workplace protections, such as improved sick leave policies and stronger anti-discrimination measures, have been stymied by state-level legislation that prohibits local governments from imposing stricter standards than those set at the state level. In Louisiana, local jurisdictions have attempted to expand benefits for municipal workers, but preemption has blocked such tailored initiatives, leaving cities unable to meet the specific needs of diverse communities. The consequences can be dire. Preempting the establishment of paid sick leave forces workers to choose between their health and their income, exacerbating financial instability. Research shows a correlation between weak labor protections and increased mortality rates, especially in disadvantaged communities.
While such policies are often written in race-neutral language, in practice, they often inflict disproportionate harm on Black and Brown communities. Major urban centers in the Deep South often have much higher proportions of African American residents than the region as a whole. For example, Birmingham, Alabama, is about 73% Black; Jackson, Mississippi, is 82% Black; New Orleans, Louisiana, is around 59% Black; and Atlanta, Georgia, is roughly 52% Black, differentiating them from the overall regional average of 30%. When state preemption laws limit local governments’ ability to raise revenue or tailor regulations—by capping property taxes or restricting local policymaking, for example—they can force economically marginalized areas into a cycle of disinvestment and reduced public services.
For instance, cities and counties in Alabama cannot raise property taxes above the rate set by the Alabama constitution without an amendment, which tends to only happen in affluent, predominantly white communities, leaving economically disadvantaged areas with few options to boost revenue. Some state laws prohibit camping and other outdoor activities except in designated areas, preventing local governments from adopting measures that better protect the human rights of people experiencing homelessness.
How human rights cities can challenge state preemption using international human rights mechanisms
Global human rights frameworks offer cities robust normative and legal tools to challenge state preemption of local laws and policies. Various international instruments ratified or signed by the United States establish comprehensive rights that include nondiscrimination, as well as the rights to adequate housing, education, health, labor standards, and participation in political and cultural life. They provide a global benchmark that local governments can invoke to contest state laws restricting higher human rights standards at the local level. Cities can leverage these globally recognized rights to press state authorities to yield greater regulatory autonomy. By organizing, both within their communities and across cities, activists can mobilize local and transnational public opinion to create a powerful narrative for reform.
Local governments have several strategic options to combat state preemption and protect human rights. They can pursue legal challenges, particularly when preemption is enacted with discriminatory intent, and form alliances with advocacy groups to bolster resistance efforts. At the federal level, local governments can lobby for rights-related improvements, such as legislation supporting municipal broadband, and advocate that the US Congress or state legislatures adopt international human rights standards that currently lack domestic legal counterparts, thereby allowing their enforcement through the courts. Public awareness campaigns can shed light on the way preemption undermines individual rights, while partnerships with universities can generate research and educational programs to document and explain these impacts. Additionally, municipalities can leverage international mechanisms, such as the United Nations Universal Periodic Review or other human rights bodies, to submit shadow reports that highlight local human rights violations and hold higher levels of government accountable. More information on specific ways for cities to challenge state preemption and to be involved in human rights advocacy can be found on the website of the Human Rights Cities Alliance.
In the face of increasingly aggressive state preemption, cities must assert their role as defenders of human rights by making use of international frameworks and forming strategic alliances to protect their residents. By embracing global human rights norms and documenting the lived consequences of preemption, local governments can resist state overreach and work toward more equitable and democratic governance.
This article is part of a series in partnership with the Human Rights Cities Alliance. See other articles in this series here.