I've run across the phrase "Congress having occupied the field" in legal writings recently. Can someone explain this?
My question relates to The Common Law Right of Access to Public Records. Since Congress passed FOIA and exempted itself, does this phrase apply to the records of the Capitol Police actions on January 6th?
There are a number of areas in which the US states can pass laws only to the extend that they do not conflict with Federal laws passed by Congress. When a federal law clearly says that states may not pass laws on a given subject, the issue is clear. When it specifically invites state laws, the issue is also clear. But when a Federal law imposes certain regulations in a given area, it may not be clear if a state may go beyond the Federal requirements. Sometimes it can. For example, there is a Federal Minimum Wage. But states are free to impose higher minimum wage levels, and some have done so.
So when a court decision or legal article says "Congress having occupied the field" it means that a set of Federal laws is intended to be a compelte regulation of a given area, and states may not add additional regulations of their own in that area.
I am not sure what rules apply to disclosure of information by the Capitol police.
"Occupying the field" refers to a situation in where federal regulation of a matter is "so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). In other words, if the federal government has so comprehensively regulated an industry or product or activity, the states may not impose their own regulations.
That concept would not apply to the records of the Capitol Police, for a few reasons. First, I don't know of any state laws that purport to govern access to records held by the Capitol Police. Even if such a law did exist, FOIA would not "occupy the field," as it governs only records held by certain components of the executive department, 5 U.S.C. 552(f) .
The common-law right of access would likely not apply, as it is rarely applied to anything other than records held by the judiciary.
