Federal preemption - Wikipedia Federal preemption From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search invalidation of U.S. state laws that conflict with national law In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law. Contents 1 Constitutional basis 1.1 Intent of Congress presumed to be deference to states 1.2 Federal agency administration guiding principles 2 Evidence of Congressional intent to preempt 2.1 Express preemption 2.2 Implied preemption 2.2.1 Conflict preemption 2.2.2 Field preemption 2.3 Preemption in bankruptcy courts 3 Distinction from commandeering 4 See also 5 References 6 External links Constitutional basis[edit] According to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) of the United States Constitution, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. As the Supreme Court stated in Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), a federal law that conflicts with a state law will trump, or "preempt", that state law: Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are "without effect". Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981) Although many concurrent powers are subject to federal preemption, some are usually not, such as the power to tax private citizens.[1] Intent of Congress presumed to be deference to states[edit] In Altria Group v. Good, the Court wrote: When the text of a pre-emption clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily "accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 449 (2005). In Wyeth v. Levine (2009), the Court emphasized what it called the "two cornerstones" of pre-emption jurisprudence: First, "the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case". Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470, 485 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 375 U. S. 96, 103 (1963). [Medtronic: "[O]ur analysis of the scope of the statute's pre-emption is guided by our oft-repeated comment, initially made in Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96, 103, ... (1963), that 'the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touch-stone' in every pre-emption case."] Second, "[i]n all pre-emption cases, and particularly in those in which Congress has 'legislated ... in a field which the States have traditionally occupied', ... we 'start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress'." Lohr, 518 U. S., at 485 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947) ). See also Reilly, 533 U. S., at 541–542 (citation omitted): Because "federal law is said to bar state action in [a] fiel[d] of traditional state regulation", namely, advertising, we "wor[k] on the assumption that the historic police powers of the States [a]re not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. Federal agency administration guiding principles[edit] (Mandatory authority for independent agencies created by executive order and Cabinet departments; not binding on judicially-created tribunals; congressionally-created independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply) Executive Order 13132 of August 4, 1999 – See 64 Fed. Reg. 43, 255 – August 10, 1999, Sec. 4. Special Requirements for Preemption. Agencies, in taking action that preempts State law, shall act in strict accordance with governing law. (a) Agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only where the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute. (b) Where a Federal statute does not preempt State law (as addressed in subsection (a) of this section), agencies shall construe any authorization in the statute for the issuance of regulations as authorizing preemption of State law by rulemaking only when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute or there is clear evidence to conclude that the Congress intended the agency to have the authority to preempt State law. (c) Any regulatory preemption of State law shall be restricted to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute pursuant to which the regulations are promulgated. (d) When an agency foresees the possibility of a conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within its area of regulatory responsibility, the agency shall consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials in an effort to avoid such a conflict. (e) When an agency proposes to act through adjudication or rulemaking to preempt State law, the agency shall provide all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings. Evidence of Congressional intent to preempt[edit] In Altria Group v. Good, the Court reiterates that "Congress may indicate pre-emptive intent" in two ways: "through a statute's express language or through its structure and purpose. See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977)". Express preemption[edit] Express preemption occurs only when a federal statute explicitly confirms Congress's intention to preempt state law. English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72 (1990). "If a federal law contains an express pre-emption clause, it does not immediately end the inquiry because the question of the substance and scope of Congress' displacement of state law still remains." Altria Group v. Good Implied preemption[edit] Implied preemption can occur in two ways: field preemption or conflict preemption. Massachusetts Ass'n of HMOs v. Ruthardt, 194 F.3d 176, 179 (1st Cir. 1999). Conflict preemption[edit] Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is preempted.[2] Conflict arises when it is impossible to comply with both the state and federal regulations, or when the state law interposes [(to) put up (between)] an obstacle to the achievement of Congress's discernible objectives.[3] Actual conflict A conflict exists if a party cannot comply with both state law and federal law (for example, if state law forbids something that federal law requires).[4] Obstacle In addition, even in the absence of a direct conflict between state and federal law, a conflict exists if the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.[5] In Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a patent agent who was not a licensed attorney and was authorized to practice before the U.S. Patent Office pursuant to a federal statute could not be barred by Florida from continuing to practice as a patent agent in Florida, where the Florida Supreme Court determined that he was guilty of the unauthorized practice of law. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the law authorizing the Patent Office to regulate patent agents, finding it within the scope of what was necessary and proper for Congress to exercise its authority under the Patent Clause and therefore did not violate the Tenth Amendment.[6] Minimum safety standard vs. uniform safety standard Often there may be a question of frustration of congressional purpose or the state law standing as an obstacle to congressional intent. This will raise a question of whether congressional or administrative intent in passing the law was uniformity or minimum national safety standards. Congressional intent may be to allow States to pass laws that will "establish greater safety than the minimum safety achieved by a federal regulation intended to provide a floor".[7] Alternatively, the purpose of a federal law could be to set a uniform national standard. This was the case in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., where the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 required auto manufacturers to equip a certain number of their 1987 vehicles with passive restraints.[8] The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Act pre-empted state common-law tort claims saying that the auto manufacturer, although in compliance with the Act, "should nonetheless have equipped a 1987 automobile with airbags". The court indicated that, despite a savings clause, the statute "reflects a desire to subject the industry to a single, uniform set of federal safety standards. Its pre-emption of all state standards, even those that might stand in harmony with federal law, suggests an intent to avoid conflict, uncertainty, cost, and occasional risk to safety itself that too many different safety–standard cooks might otherwise create."[9] Field preemption[edit] Even without a conflict between federal and state law or an express provision for preemption, the courts will infer an intention to preempt state law if the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to "occupy the field" in that area of the law, i.e. to warrant an inference that Congress did not intend the states to supplement it. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992). See also Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. For example, the courts have held that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts state laws directed at conduct actually or arguably prohibited or protected by the NLRA or conduct Congress intended to leave unregulated. San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244 (1959); Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Commission, 427 U.S. 132, 140–48 (1976). Preemption in bankruptcy courts[edit] The Bankruptcy Code, which is codified as title 11 of the United States Code, is the uniform federal law that governs all bankruptcy cases. There are several purposes behind the enactment of the law in its current form. Most important is a fresh start for the honest but unfortunate debtor and equality of distribution to creditors. Since state law governs most contracts, and contracts usually form the basis for debt, there is a lot of overlap between state laws and bankruptcy. This overlap is ripe for preemption wherever state law interferes with either the debtor's fresh start or a creditor's right to equal distribution. Examples include: In Hawaii, a homeowner may not sue his homeowner's association unless and until all fees are paid in full. This tremendous leverage for the HOA but has been recently held to be preempted. A homeowner cannot sue the HOA in state court but may be able to do so in bankruptcy court. In California, several laws including portions of the California Constitution have been held to be unconstitutional. This includes California's one-action rule and protections given to CalPERS.[10] Distinction from commandeering[edit] Congress may enact federal law that supersedes, or preempts, state law, which makes it invalid. Under the Tenth Amendment, Congress may not make a law that forces a state government to take some action that it would not have otherwise taken.[11] The distinction between commandeering and preemption was issue in Murphy v. NCAA, a case in which New Jersey repealed laws criminalizing sports betting while a federal law prevented states providing that states may not "sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact" sports gambling.[12][13][14] The court rejected the respondents' argument that the anti-authorization provision was a valid preemption of state law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[15] The Supremacy Clause, the court pointed out, "is not an independent grant of legislative power to Congress" but "[i]nstead, it simply provides a rule of decision."[16] For a federal provision to validly preempt state law, "it must represent the exercise of a power conferred on Congress by the Constitution[,] pointing to the Supremacy Clause will not do",[17] and "since the Constitution confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States, [the] provision at issue must be best read as one that regulates private actors."[18] The court then outlined the three types of preemption, illustrated with cases. In Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, an example of conflict preemption, federal law enacted under Congress' Commerce Clause authority prohibited generic drug manufacturers from changing the composition or labeling of drugs approved by the Federal Drug Administration, thus state tort law could not force or hold liable a generic drug manufacturer for adding additional information to the FDA-approved label.[19] Express preemption "operates in essentially the same way, but this is often obscured by the language used by Congress in framing preemption provisions."[20] The court illustrated express preemption with Morales v. Trans World Airlines concerning a provision of the Airline Deregulation Act that used language that seemed directed to the states and similar to the issue in Murphy: [T]o ensure that the States would not undo federal deregulation with regulation of their own, the Act provided that 'no State or political subdivision thereof...shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any [covered] air carrier.' This language might appear to operate directly on the States, but it is a mistake to be confused by the way in which a preemption provision is phrased. As we recently explained, we do not require Congress to employ a particular linguistic formulation when preempting state law. And if we look beyond the phrasing employed in the Airline Deregulation Act’s preemption provision, it is clear that this provision operates just like any other federal law with preemptive effect. It confers on private entities (i.e., covered carriers) a federal right to engage in certain conduct subject only to certain (federal) constraints."[21] The court then explained that field preemption, the third type of preemption, occurs when federal regulation of a "'field' of regulation [is] so comprehensive[] that it has left no room for supplementary state legislation."[22] The court noted that even it used the same sort of abbreviated description as Congress has done in express preemption, such as involved in Morales, in a 2015 case where the court described field preemption: "Congress has forbidden the State to take action in the field that the federal statute pre-empts."[23] However, "in substance, field preemption does not involve congressional commands to the States", but "like all other forms of preemption, it concerns a clash between a constitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power and conflicting state law."[24] The court then explained why preemption was not applicable to the PASPA provision prohibiting states from authorizing sports betting: In sum, regardless of the language sometimes used by Congress and this Court, every form of preemption is based on a federal law that regulates the conduct of private actors, not the States. Once this is understood, it is clear that the PASPA provision prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling is not a preemption provision because there is no way in which this provision can be understood as a regulation of private actors. It certainly does not confer any federal rights on private actors interested in conducting sports gambling operations. (It does not give them a federal right to engage in sports gambling.) Nor does it impose any federal restrictions on private actors. If a private citizen or company started a sports gambling operation, either with or without state authorization, §3702(1) would not be violated and would not provide any ground for a civil action by the Attorney General or any other party. Thus, there is simply no way to understand the provision prohibiting state authorization as anything other than a direct command to the States. And that is exactly what the anticommandeering rule does not allow.[25] See also[edit] Intergovernmental immunity Paramountcy (Canada), analogous doctrine in Canadian constitutional law References[edit] ^ Zimmerman, Joseph. The Initiative, Second Edition: Citizen Lawmaking, p. 78 (SUNY Press, 2014). ^ Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). ^ Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992). ^ Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142–43 (1963). ^ Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372–73 (2000). ^ Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) ^ Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 870, 120 S. Ct. 1913, 146 L. Ed. 2d 914 (2000). ^ Geier, 529 U.S. at 864–865 ^ Geier, 529 U.S. at 871 ^ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com. Retrieved April 30, 2018. ^ Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. October 29, 2002). ^ de Vogue, Ariane (December 4, 2017). "Chris Christie goes to the Supreme Court on sports betting". CNN. Archived from the original on December 4, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017. ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (December 4, 2017). "Chris Christie's Big Gamble: The Supreme Court appears poised to let every state authorize sports betting". Slate. Archived from the original on December 9, 2017. ^ Schwartz, Davis (March 21, 2013). "High Federalism: Marijuana Legalization and the Limits of Federal Power to Regulate States". Cardozo Law Review. 35 (567). SSRN 2237618. ^ Murphy, slip op. at 21–24 ^ Murphy, slip op. at 21 ^ Murphy, slip op. at 21 ^ Murphy, slip op. at 21 (internal citation and quotation marks removed) ^ Murphy, slip op. at 22 (citing Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013)). ^ Murphy, slip op. at 21 ^ Murphy, slip op. at 22–23 (quoting 49 U. S. C. App. §1305(a)(1) (1988 ed.))(internal citations and some internal quotation marks removed) ^ Murphy, slip op. at 23 (internal punctuation altered) ^ Murphy, slip op. at 23 (quoting Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., slip op. at 2 (2015)) ^ Murphy, slip op. at 23 ^ Murphy, slip op. at 23–24 External links[edit] California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987) (reviewing preemption doctrine). Buzbee, William W. (2009). Preemption choice. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-88805-9. "Federal Preemption: The Power to Supersede State Regulation". Public health law and ethics. University of California Press. 2002. ISBN 978-0-520-23174-0. "Federal Preemption and the Role of State and Local Laws". Technology, Law, and the Working Environment. Island Press. 1996. ISBN 978-1-55963-446-5. Morrison, Alan B. (1998). "Preemption Controversies". Fundamentals of American law. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 978-0-19-876405-2. Lively, Donald E.; Weaver, Russell L. (2006). "Federal Preemption of State Power". Contemporary Supreme Court cases. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-33514-3. Henkin, Louis (2002). "Federal Preemption". Foreign affairs and the United States Constitution. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-826098-1. Drahozal, Christopher R. (2004). "Federal Preemption of State Law". The supremacy clause. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-31447-6. Perry, Ronen (2011). "Differential Preemption" Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 72 (discussing maritime preemption) v t e Constitution of the United States Articles Preamble I II III IV V VI VII Amendments Ratified Bill of Rights 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1795–1804 11 12 Reconstruction 13 14 15 20th century 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Pending Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Amendment Child Labor Past deadline Equal Rights District of Columbia Voting Rights Proposed amendments Balanced budget amendment Blaine Amendment Bricker Amendment Campaign finance reform amendment Christian amendment Crittenden Compromise Electoral College abolition amendment Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment Federal Marriage Amendment Flag Desecration Amendment Human Life Amendment Ludlow Amendment Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution Proposed "Liberty" Amendment to the United States Constitution School Prayer Amendment Single subject amendment Victims' Rights Amendment Convention to propose amendments State ratifying conventions Formation History Articles of Confederation Mount Vernon Conference Annapolis Convention Philadelphia Convention Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Connecticut Compromise Three-fifths Compromise Committee of Detail Signing Independence Hall Syng inkstand The Federalist Papers Anti-Federalist Papers Massachusetts Compromise Virginia Ratifying Convention New York Circular Letter Hillsborough Convention Fayetteville Convention Rhode Island ratification Drafting and ratification timeline Clauses Appointments Appropriations Assistance of Counsel Case or Controversy Citizenship Commerce Compact Compulsory Process Confrontation Congressional enforcement Contract Copyright and Patent Double Jeopardy Due Process Elections Equal Protection Establishment Exceptions Excessive Bail Ex post facto Extradition Free Exercise Free Speech Fugitive Slave Full Faith and Credit General Welfare Guarantee Impeachment Import-Export Ineligibility Militia Natural-born citizen Necessary and Proper New States No Religious Test Oath or Affirmation Origination Pardon Petition Postal Presentment Presidential succession Privileges and Immunities Privileges or Immunities Recess appointment Recommendation Self-Incrimination Speech or Debate Speedy Trial State of the Union Supremacy Suspension Take Care Takings Taxing and Spending Territorial Title of Nobility (Foreign Emoluments) Treaty Trial by Jury Vesting Vicinage War Powers Interpretation Balance of powers Concurrent powers Constitutional law Criminal procedure Criminal sentencing Dormant Commerce Clause Enumerated powers Equal footing Executive privilege Implied powers Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Judicial review Nondelegation doctrine Plenary power Preemption Reserved powers Saxbe fix Separation of church and state Separation of powers Symmetric federalism Taxation power Unitary executive theory Display and legacy National Archives Charters of Freedom Rotunda Independence Mall Constitution Day Constitution Gardens National Constitution Center Scene at the Signing of the Constitution (painting) A More Perfect Union (film) USS Constitution Worldwide influence United States Portal • Law Portal • Wikipedia book v t e United States articles History By event Pre-Columbian era Colonial era Thirteen Colonies military history Founding Fathers Continental Congress Continental Association Lee Resolution Declaration of Independence American Revolution War Treaty of Paris Articles of Confederation Confederation Period American frontier Drafting and ratification of Constitution Bill of Rights Federalist Era War of 1812 Territorial evolution Mexican–American War Civil War Reconstruction era Indian Wars Gilded Age Progressive Era Women's suffrage Civil rights movement 1865–1896 / 1896–1954 / 1954–1968 Spanish–American War Imperialism World War I Roaring Twenties Great Depression World War II home front American Century Cold War Korean War Space Race Feminist Movement Vietnam War Post-Cold War (1991–2008) War on Terror War in Afghanistan Iraq War COVID-19 pandemic By topic Outline of U.S. history Demographic Discoveries Economic debt ceiling Inventions before 1890 1890–1945 1946–1991 after 1991 Military Postal Technological and industrial Geography Territory Contiguous United States Continental America counties federal district federal enclaves Indian reservations insular zones minor outlying islands populated places states Earthquakes Extreme points Islands Mountains peaks ranges Appalachian Rocky National Park Service National Parks Regions East Coast West Coast Great Plains Gulf Mid-Atlantic Midwestern New England Pacific Central Eastern Northern Northeastern Northwestern Southern Southeastern Southwestern Western Longest rivers Arkansas Colorado Columbia Mississippi Missouri Red (South) Rio Grande Yukon Time Water supply and sanitation World Heritage Sites Politics Federal Executive Cabinet Civil service Executive departments Executive Office Independent agencies Law enforcement President of the United States Powers Public policy Legislative House of Representatives current members Speaker Senate current members President pro tempore Vice President Judicial District courts Courts of appeals Supreme Court Law Bill of Rights civil liberties Code of Federal Regulations Constitution federalism preemption separation of powers civil rights Federal Reporter United States Code United States Reports Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency Defense Intelligence Agency Federal Bureau of Investigation National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency National Reconnaissance Office National Security Agency Office of the Director of National Intelligence Uniformed Armed Forces Army Marine Corps Navy Air Force Space Force Coast Guard National Guard NOAA Corps Public Health Service Corps 51st state political status of Puerto Rico District of Columbia statehood movement Elections Electoral College Foreign relations Foreign policy Hawaiian sovereignty movement Ideologies anti-Americanism exceptionalism nationalism Local government Parties Democratic Republican Third parties Red states and blue states Purple America Scandals State government governor state legislature state court Imperial Presidency Corruption Economy By sector Agriculture Banking Communications Companies Energy Insurance Manufacturing Mining Science and technology Tourism Trade Transportation by state Currency Exports Federal budget Federal Reserve System Financial position Labor unions Public debt Social welfare programs Taxation Unemployment Wall Street Society Culture Americana Architecture Cinema Crime Cuisine Dance Demography Economic issues affluence eviction home-ownership household income income inequality labor unions middle class personal income poverty standard of living wealth Education attainment Family structure Fashion Flag Folklore Great American Novel Health health care health insurance Holidays Homelessness Human rights Languages American English Indigenous languages ASL Black American Sign Language HSL Plains Sign Talk Arabic Chinese French German Italian Russian Spanish Literature Media Journalism Internet Newspapers Radio Television Music Names National symbols Columbia Statue of Liberty Uncle Sam People Philosophy Political ideologies Public holidays Race Religion Sexuality / Adolescent Sexuality Social class Society Sports Theater Transportation Video games Visual art Social class Affluence American Dream Educational attainment Homelessness Home-ownership Household income Income inequality Middle class Personal income Poverty Professional and working class conflict Standard of living Issues Ages of consent Capital punishment Crime incarceration Criticism of government Discrimination affirmative action antisemitism hair texture intersex rights Islamophobia LGBT rights racism same-sex marriage Drug policy Energy policy Environmental movement Gun politics Health care abortion health insurance hunger obesity smoking Human rights Immigration illegal International rankings National security Mass surveillance Terrorism Separation of church and state Outline Index Category Portal Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_preemption&oldid=990866801" Categories: United States law United States federal preemption law Hidden categories: Use American English from March 2019 All Wikipedia articles written in American English Articles with short description Short description matches Wikidata Use mdy dates from March 2019 Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Article Talk Variants Views Read Edit View history More Search Navigation Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate Contribute Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Cite this page Wikidata item Print/export Download as PDF Printable version Languages 한국어 Edit links This page was last edited on 26 November 2020, at 23:37 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Mobile view Developers Statistics Cookie statement