The DPPA and "conflicts" between state and federal law

QUESTION: Isn't the relationship between the Compassionate Use Act and the Controlled Substances Act in Raich somewhat analogous to South Carolina law and the DPPA in Reno v. Condon? In Condon, the Supreme Court says that "South Carolina law conflicts with the DPPA's provisions." Is this statement any different from "South Carolina law conflicts with the DPPA?"

ANSWER: I think you are right, and that the word "conflicts" here might be employed a bit too loosely. What is different about Condon, though, is that the DPPA is controlling the state itself. So when South Carolina law stated that the state DMV would disseminate this information, it was really saying that this would happen--not just that, as a matter of South Carolina law, it was permissible. It was an expression of what the state, itself, intended to do. In this sense, there was a conflict, in a way that there was not between the CSA and the Compassionate Use Act, both of which only regulate private persons. Nonetheless, your larger point rings true: When state law permits something and federal law prohibits it, there generally is not a conflict between the two. Rather, the state has simply chosen not to regulate the activity in question, even though the federal government has made the opposite choice.