What happens when two laws contradict each other?

Question

A recent example of this is the DOJ's lawsuit against SpaceX for discriminating against asylum seekers, and the ITAR laws that prevent them from hiring asylum seekers (because they make missile technology and can therefore only hire US Citizens with security clearance). In this case, two federal laws conflict.

Another situation I am familiar with was a case where an employee on an H1B visa at a company I worked for had his visa expire after six years, and although the management made it clear that that meant he could not work there, he continued to hang out and do a few things. He then sued under the Illinois wage laws that meant the company was obliged to pay him for his time, even though it was illegal for them to hire him without a valid work visa. In this particular case the federal law was ignored and the state law took precedence.

Irrespective of those two cases (I'm sure a lot depends on the details), what are the general principles where laws conflict either from different jurisdictions or, as surely happens, within the same jurisdiction? I understand that "the court decides" but how does the court decide?

I'm in the USA, but also interested in what happens beyond my borders.

Answer 1

Those are not good examples

In the first case, the DoJ’s position is that there is no such law that prevents SpaceX from hiring asylum seekers. In the second, the two laws don’t conflict: the Federal law says the company can’t legally employ this person, the state law says employees get paid and doesn’t care if they were hired legally or not.

However, it is a good question

First, courts take the position that the legislature (or executive) does not want to promulgate ineffective laws. So, the starting point for the analysis is to find a way of reading the law so that any conflict is eliminated or, at least, minimised. Such a reading can almost always be found.

In the small number of cases where a conflict remains, there are several hierarchies involved.

• Federal law beats state law providing the Federal government remains within the scope of its powers. Similarly, state law beats local government law. Government law beats private law (e.g. if a rule of a company or HOA breaches the law, it’s invalid).
• Constitutional law beats statute law. Primary statutes (Acts) beat secondary statutes (Regulations or Orders). Statute law beats case law.
• Newer law beats older law
• More specific beats less specific - a particular law about motorcycles will be preferred over a general rule about motor vehicles, for example.

Answer 2

A recent example of this is the DOJ's lawsuit against SpaceX for discriminating against asylum seekers, and the ITAR laws that prevent them from hiring asylum seekers (because the make missile technology and can therefore only hire US Citizens with security clearance). In this case two federal laws conflict.

According to the DOJ, ITAR laws do not impose any such restriction. See the press release Justice Department Sues SpaceX for Discriminating Against Asylees and Refugees in Hiring:

Export control laws impose no such hiring restrictions. Moreover, asylees’ and refugees’ permission to live and work in the United States does not expire, and they stand on equal footing with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents under export control laws. Under these laws, companies like SpaceX can hire asylees and refugees for the same positions they would hire U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. And once hired, asylees and refugees can access export-controlled information and materials without additional government approval, just like U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

The court will have to determine whether this is in fact the correct interpretation, but to the best of my knowledge it is.

an H1B at a company I worked for had his visa expire after six years, and although the management made it clear that that meant he could not work there, he continued to hang out and do a few things. He then sued under the Illinois wage laws that meant the company was obliged to pay him for his time, even though it was illegal for them to hire him without a valid work visa. In this particular case the federal law was ignored and the state law took precedence.

I cannot find the actual case based on your description, so I'm responding to how you described this case. The Federal law was not ignored. It was in fact illegal for the firm to continue employing the individual and they were in violation of the Federal law. The lawsuit however was not about whether they had to continue the employment, but whether they had to pay for the work done. Regardless of whether the employee was hired legally or not, the wages for the work performed have to be paid. There's no conflict. The Federal law violation doesn't excuse the State law violation.

Answer 3

A pretty common rule internationally is lex specialis. When two laws conflict, but one is a general law and the other is specific to the case, then the second law is taken as an exception to the first law. For instance, laws about contracts can contradict laws about employment contracts, but the latter are more specific.

In this case, "You cannot discriminate when hiring" is the general rule, and "You must discriminate (on security clearance) when hiring for ITAR positions" is (or would be) the more specific rule.