









































COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   63   62  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

Post-Reconstruction Black Codes implemented throughout the South 
stunted the economic mobility of  Black workers and replicated the free 
labor system of  slavery (Nittle, 2021). While these laws were abandoned 
or outlawed over time (Nittle, 2021; PBS, 2017), the use of  contemporary 
preemption in Southern states acts as a de facto continuation of  
Black Codes by barring legislation, often from progressive cities and 
municipalities, that seeks to strengthen rights and protections for Black 
workers throughout the region. In order to properly understand the 
unique racial, political, and economic entanglement between twenty-
first century preemption and the oppression of  Black workers, one must 
first explore the origins of  preemption and the history of  Black worker 
oppression in the South. This examination provides the backdrop for 
modern attempts to suppress Black workers in states like Alabama and 
Tennessee. A closer look at the deep political divisions between Southern 
legislatures and urban municipalities in their states offer arguments, 
though unfounded and insufficient, in favor of  preemption, and outline 
the challenges worker advocates face when addressing the problem. 
Despite its challenges, it is critical for organizers to continue fighting 
preemption using creative strategies and to reaffirm the rights and 
advancement of  Black workers.  

Keywords: preemption, South, Dillon’s Rule, Home Rule, Black Codes, 
workers, oppression

Still Fighting: The Relationship 
Between Contemporary 

Preemption in the South and the 
Continued Struggle for Black 

Worker Rights

RESHA T. SWANSON
SHE/HER



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   65   64  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

STILL FIGHTING

STILL FIGHTING: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 
CONTEMPORARY PREEMPTION IN THE SOUTH AND THE 
CONTINUED STRUGGLE FOR BLACK WORKER RIGHTS

In the South1, where the shadows of  slavery loom long and heavy, 
the word preemption strikes fear into the hearts of  local legislators 
and worker rights advocates. Preemption is the “use of  state law to 
nullify a municipal ordinance or authority” (DuPuis et al., 2018, p. 
3). Predominantly white state legislatures use preemption to strike 
down ordinances passed by progressive cities, including legislation that 
raises the minimum wage, mandates paid leave, or advocates for fair 
workweeks. Through it all, workers from these liberal, urban areas with 
highly concentrated Black populations––often led by Black and Latinx 
city councils––suffer the economic consequences (Blair et al., 2020). In 
short, preemption is more than a tool used by state legislatures to block 
progressive legislation. It is a racially charged mechanism that has been 
employed for centuries to perpetuate white supremacy and suppress the 
rights of  Black workers in the South. 

This paper explores the historical origins of  state preemption, its 
connection to Black worker suppression, and preemption’s manifestation 
in the twenty-first century South. While this paper focuses on the South, 
it does not mean to express that preemption does not thrive in Northern 
states or that its effects are felt only by Southern Black workers. To the 
contrary, preemption oppresses all working class individuals wherever 
utilized. “State interference with local decision-making occurs in every 
region of  the country” (Blair et al., 2020, p. 3), but preemption in the 

1 The Deep South (also known as the Lower South) refers to the states of  Alabama, Georgia, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, whose economies were historically dependent on 
the production of  cotton and slave labor (Beck & Tolnay, 1990). The Upper South, composed of  
Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, relied less heavily on slave labor and traditionally grew wheat 
and grain-based crops (Jordan, 1967). Scholarly articles vary in their inclusion of  Arkansas and Texas 
as Deep or Upper South states, but agree that they culturally and economically fall within one or 
both categories (Beck & Tolnay, 1990; Jordan, 1967). For the purpose of  this article, the author uses 
the term South (and other variations of  the word) to refer to states of  the Upper and Lower/Deep 
South areas, and, Texas, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Florida (which share similar economic and 
cultural histories).

South is distinctly shaped by conservative legislatures battling urban, 
progressive municipalities and cities, typically heavily populated by 
Black and Latinx individuals, for legislative power, making Southern 
preemption uniquely racially divisive (Blair et al., 2020). This paper 
explores racism’s deep-seated role in shaping worker-related preemption 
policies in the Southern region (Blair et al., 2020). 

In order to clearly understand contemporary preemption in the 
South, we must first study its roots in the United States and its context in 
the region. 

THE FRAMEWORK FOR PREEMPTION
Two primary factors worked in tandem to set the stage for 

contemporary preemption–: (1) the Supreme Court conferring 
preemption powers to states and (2) the restricted economic mobility of  
Black workers post-Reconstruction. 

DILLON’S RULE AND HOME RULE 
The United States Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” clearly defines 

the hierarchy of  authority between federal and state legislation, declaring 
federal law “the supreme Law of  the land” (U.S. Constitution. art. VI, 
cl. 2.1.1.3). In other words, federal laws overrule state laws in situations 
where state legislation expressly and impliedly contradicts federal law 
(Congressional Research Services, 2019). However, the Constitution 
makes no mention of  powers granted to municipalities2 and cities and 
their priority in lieu of  less or more restrictive state legislation that does 
not already contradict federal policy. This left the matter in the hands of  
various courts.

Named after former Iowa Supreme Court Justice John Dillon, 
Dillon’s Rule “derived from the two court decisions issued by Judge John 
F. Dillon of  Iowa in 1868” (National League of  Cities, 2016, para. 4). In 
the first decision, City of  Clinton v. Cedar Rapids and Missouri River 

2 In this article, the term municipality refers to counties, wards, and similar governing bodies that 
function as “political subdivisions of  the state” (Phillips, 2017, pp. 2230-2231).

RESHA T. SWANSON



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   67   66  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

Railroad Company (1868), “the plaintiff, the City of  Clinton, sought 
to enjoin the defendant, Railroad Company (“Cedar Rapids”), from 
building railroad tracks across the city’s streets without the city’s consent” 
(Hansford, 2020, para. 3). Eventually, “the court held that the city could 
not prevent Cedar Rapids from building over the streets of  the city 
because the Iowa legislature granted Cedar Rapids the right to do so” 
(Hansford, 2020, para. 3). Regarding the decision, Judge Dillon wrote:

The true view is this: Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and 
derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes 
into them the breath of  life, without which they cannot exist...Unless 
there is some constitutional limitation on the right, the legislature might, 
by a single act, if  we can suppose it capable of  so great a folly and so 
great a wrong, sweep from existence all of  the municipal corporations 
in the State, and the corporation could not prevent it. We know of  
no limitation on this right so far as the corporations themselves are 
concerned. They are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of  the 
legislature. (City of  Clinton v. Cedar Rapids and Missouri River Railroad 
Company, 24 Iowa 455, 475, 1868)

The second key decision, Merriam v. Moody’s Executors (1868), 
challenged a city’s ability to “sell and convey real estate for the non-
payment of  special taxes” levied in the city’s charter (Merriam v. Moody’s 
Executors, 25 Iowa 163, 170). Dillon wrote:

In determining the question now made, it must be taken for settled 
law, that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following 
powers and no others: First, those granted in express words; second, 
those necessarily implied or necessarily incident to the powers expressly 
granted ; third, those absolutely essential to the declared objects and 
purposes of  the corporation—not simply convenient, but indispensable; 
fourth, any fair doubt as to the existence of  a power is resolved by the 
courts against the corporation—against the existence of  the power. 
(Merriam v. Moody’s Executors, 25 Iowa 163, 170, 1868)

Justice Dillon would expound on what came to be known as 
“Dillon’s Rule” in five editions of  his legal treatise Dillon on the Law of  

Municipal Corporations (Hansford, 2020). The United States Supreme 
Court adopted Justice Dillon’s analysis in a 1907 decision in Hunter 
v. Pittsburgh, where the Court declared,  “Municipal corporations are 
political subdivisions of  the State, created by it and at all times wholly 
under its legislative control” (Hunter v. City of  Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 
52 L. Ed. 151, 28 S. Ct. 40, 1907).

The most crippling part of  Dillon’s Rule is the provision that any 
powers not expressly given to localities have not been conferred, which 
severely limits municipalities’ ability to pass legislation that the state 
legislature may see as politically unfavorable (National League of  Cities, 
2016). The National League of  Cities (2016) notes, “No local action 
could be undertaken without permission from the state legislature, which 
only met for short, biennial sessions…[and] generally requires that 
local officials spend a considerable amount of  time lobbying the state 
legislature” (para. 6).

Concerned about the restrictive nature of  Dillon’s Rule, Judge 
Thomas Cooley held that local governments did possess some power to 
pass legislation within the bounds of  state laws and constitutions (People 
ex rel. Le Roy v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 1871). While Home Rule helped 
municipalities regain limited power in the early 1900s by “conferring 
some powers to local governments,” its “power is limited to specific fields, 
and subject to constant judicial interpretation,” and was, moreover, 
defined and applied differently by each state (National League of  Cities, 
2016, paras. 7-8). 

The application of  Dillon’s Rule and Home Rule is sporadic. Dillon’s 
Rule can be applied to municipalities, cities, or towns with a certain 
population or chartered before a certain year (or a combination of  the 
two), which is the case in eight states (Russell & Bostrom, 2016). For 
example, Alabama applies Dillon’s Rule to counties but Home Rule to 
other municipalities like towns and cities (Hansford, 2020). Some states 
provide for Home Rule through constitutional changes, while others do 
it through legislative statutes, and states may limit Home Rule to cities, 
municipalities, or a combination of  the two (Russell & Bostrom, 2016). 

STILL FIGHTING RESHA T. SWANSON



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   69   68  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

The uneven application of  Dillon’s Rule and Home Rule sets the stage 
for battles over legislative power within states. 

A HISTORY OF BLACK WORKER SUPPRESSION
Another key component to understanding contemporary  

worker rights preemption is the South’s torrid history of  Black  
worker suppression.

The Civil War, followed by Reconstruction, upheaved the lives of  
Southern aristocrats and governing entities. General Sherman’s March 
to the Sea left thousands of  Southerners with damaged or no property, 
burned cities and fields, and deep-seated resentment (PBS, 2021). In 
addition to economic loss and extensive property damage, many ruling 
Southern whites also lost their labor source–– enslaved Black people––in 
the years following the Civil War (PBS, 2021). Reconstruction forced 
former slave owners to live amongst (at least to some extent) their former 
“subjects” who, thanks to the newly passed Fourteenth and Fifteenth 
Amendments, were now endowed (theoretically, at least) with the same 
inalienable rights, and competed for coveted economic and natural 
resources (United States Senate, 2021). 

Intensified by the tight stranglehold of  Reconstructionist 
Northerners, emancipation threw Southern governments into chaos. 
When President Hayes reversed Reconstruction in 1877 and withdrew 
troops, Southern, white lawmakers jumped at the opportunity to 
“disenfranchise Black voters and dismantle the reforms that had been 
instituted after the Civil War…and restore the racial hierarchy of  the pre 
Civil War political order” (Blair et al., 2020, p. 5). Black Codes or Black 
Laws were passed, primarily in Southern states, that successfully “limited 
the rights of  Black people and exploited them as a labor source” (Nittle, 
2021, para. 1). These laws created a free labor system that mimicked 
slavery and served as early examples of  Southern legislatures using their 
power to prevent Black people from gaining economic mobility. Black 
Codes included state legislation like the following:

In addition to criminalizing joblessness for African Americans, the 

codes required Black people to sign annual labor contracts that ensured 
they received the lowest pay possible for their work. The codes contained 
anti-enticement measures to prevent prospective employers from paying 
Black workers higher wages than their current employers paid them. 
Failing to sign a labor contract could result in the offender being arrested, 
sentenced to unpaid labor or fined (Nittle, 2021, para. 7).

Debt peonage also forced Black individuals into free labor. The 
meager wages paid to Black individuals post-Reconstruction required 
many, especially those in the agricultural industry, to take out loans from 
creditors and sharecroppers (PBS, 2017). Additionally, Black people in 
the South were targeted and surveilled, often culminating in arrests for 
minor crimes like loitering and leading to exorbitant court fines and fees. 
(Nittle, 2021; PBS, 2017). Because they lacked economic means, Black 
people often were mandated or opted to pay back debts via exploitative 
free labor (PBS, 2017).

Moreover, Black workers endured vast abuses. Paul Worthman’s 
(1969) early survey of  Black workers and their relationship to unions 
noted the appalling conditions of  early mines in Birmingham, Alabama, 
and the animus of  white workers against their Black peers. He wrote, 
“Racial prejudice among Birmingham workers sometimes broke out 
into open conflict as white working men attempted to eliminate the 
economic competition from Black workers by barring them from certain 
trades” (Worthman, 1969, p. 381). Black workers faced not only verbal 
and physical conflict, but also financial manipulation and abuse from 
employers. Worthman (1969) described the conditions at the ore mines of  
Red Mountain: “Ore was dug by subcontractors who hired laborers at 65 
cents per day...whether or not they lived at the camps, at least 50 cent per 
month was deducted for each man’s wages for rent” (p. 397).

Dillon’s Rule, early Black Codes, and the economic suppression of  
Black workers set the stage for volatile legislative conflicts over worker 
rights across the South.

STILL FIGHTING RESHA T. SWANSON



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   71   70  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY PREEMPTION 
Seen through the historical lens of  post-Reconstruction, 

contemporary preemption can be seen as a perhaps more successful 
continuation of  early Black Codes’ efforts to limit the mobility of  Black 
workers in the South––successful in the sense of  using Dillon’s Rule and 
Home Rule as forces for maintaining a white supremacy that was codified 
into state law. It is an essential tool for majority white, conservative 
legislatures hoping to block municipal ordinances that would strengthen 
the rights of  Black workers. The Economic Policy Institute’s “Map of  the 
Campaign to Suppress Worker Rights in the States” (2019) indicates that 
Southern states have some of  the most restrictive preemption laws. In 
these states--Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee--state legislatures have 
stifled local attempts to strengthen worker rights by preempting legislation 
that altered the minimum wage, established project labor agreements, 
paid leave, and fair scheduling, instituted prevailing wages, or regulated 
the gig economy. Unsurprisingly, Black people account for 15% to 
27% of  these states’ populations, significantly higher than the national 
Black population of  13.4% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Nashville and 
Birmingham serve as two contemporary examples of  preemption in 
Southern cities and illustrate how its modern-day invocation stifles 
attempts to expand Black worker rights.  

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE & LOCAL HIRE LAWS (2015) 
In 2015, Nashville voters passed a local hire ordinance titled 

Nashville Metro Chamber Amendment Three, which aimed to create 
job opportunities for city residents. Amendment Three proposed that for 
“municipally funded construction projects that cost $100,000 or more, 
40% of  construction work hours must go to Nashville residents, with 
25% of  those work hours going to low-income Nashville residents” (Blair 
et al., 2020, p. 12). In Nashville, 14.5% of  construction workers were 
Black and 46.2% were Latinx, and 45% of  all construction workers living 
in Nashville were born outside the United States (Blair et al., 2020). At 
that time, 82.6% of  Tennessee State Legislators were white (Blair et al., 
2020). 

A few weeks later, Tennessee’s majority Republican Senate struck 
down Amendment Three. According to Woodman (2016), “Contractors’ 
associations have opposed local-hiring policies across the country as being 
anti-competitive, discriminatory to nonresidents, and ultimately a job-
killer” (para. 12). State Senator Jack Johnson, the Republican who spear-
headed the bill, and Attorney General Herbert Slatery argued that the 
local-hire agreement violated the state’s standing Contractors Licensing 
Act of  1994 (Ebert, 2016). When challenged on whether or not his bill 
was “overturning the will of  the voters of  Nashville,” Senator Johnson 
answered, “In fact we are” (Ebert, 2016, para. 6). Progressive Nashville 
worker-organizing groups recognized this as an attempt by the state to 
stymie liberal work practices and to suppress Black and Latinx workers in 
progressive municipalities (Woodman, 2016). Jason Freeman, the co-chair 
of  the Nashville Organized for Action and Hope’s Economic Equity and 
Jobs taskforce, responded by saying, “We’re trying to get a handle on how 
to address systemic poverty but the best tools that are available are, one 
by one, being taken away from us” (Woodman, 2016, para. 16).

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA & MINIMUM WAGE (2016) 
Racism obstructed Birmingham’s attempt to pass a minimum wage 

ordinance in 2016. The City of  Birmingham is a majority-minority city, 
with 70.5% of  residents identifying as Black compared to the state’s 
overall Black population of  26.8% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). In 2016, 
Birmingham City Council was also majority Black, so it came as no 
surprise that many saw the City Council’s vote to raise Birmingham’s 
minimum wage to $10.10 per hour as a significant victory for Black 
workers. Within two days, the 75% white Alabama State Legislature 
passed a bill barring “cities and counties from raising the minimum 
wage or requiring employers to provide leave or other benefits” (Blair et 
al., 2020; Roth, 2016, para. 2). The bill applied retroactively, nullifying 
Birmingham’s attempt to rectify economic disparities. There is no 
state minimum wage in Alabama, so the passage of  the bill forced 
Birmingham to adhere to the federal minimum wage of  $7.25 per hour. 
This legislation not only preempted future attempts to raise the minimum 

STILL FIGHTING RESHA T. SWANSON



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   73   72  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

wage, but it blocked any future efforts by municipalities to strengthen 
worker rights policies beyond what was enforced by the state.

Alabama’s preemption powers derive from the state’s adherence to 
Dillon’s Rule. In this case, the Alabama Constitution did not explicitly 
give municipalities the authority to set minimum wages, so the legislature 
determined the power to raise the wage was not reasonably implied, and 
quickly overruled the ordinance. Sixty-five thousand low-wage workers, 
28,000 of  whom identified as Black, were blocked from receiving higher 
wages (Blair et al., 2020).  

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF PREEMPTION: CONSERVATIVE 
STATES VERSUS LIBERAL CITIES

Despite its controversial use, many legislators favor preemption. 
The liberal metropolitan areas in Southern states are the exceptions, not 
the norm, in what are otherwise deep red, conservative territories. The 
liberal politics of  urban areas are often met with enormous opposition by 
Republican constituents, lobbyists, and legislators, which makes statewide 
coalition building extremely difficult (Adler, 2016). For example, a 
number of  Southern states enforce “right to work” laws, giving oppressed 
workers little incentive to organize and risk losing their jobs (Shermer, 
2018).  

 Some states see preemption as a tool for protecting rural areas from 
the threat of  liberal cities. Ebert’s (2017) article references Texas Lt. 
Governor Dan Patrick, who remarked: 

Where do we have all our problems in America? Not at the state 
level, run by  Republicans, but in our cities that are mostly controlled by 
Democrat mayors and  Democrat city councilmen and women. That’s 
where you see liberal policies. That’s  where you see high taxes. That’s 
where you see street crime. (para. 17)  

Others view preemption as a recourse for stopping “left-wing special 
interest groups” from  implementing liberal policies that do not reflect the 
will of  the majority of  the state (Ebert, 2017).  Less partisan arguments 
for preemption claim local autonomy will lead to confusing laws and 

statutes that will undermine the authority of  state governments (DuPuis 
et al., 2018). 

Conservative lawmakers routinely frame progressive worker rights 
strategies as liberal overreach, but it is abundantly clear that preemption 
policies passed by legislatures do not hold the best interest of  workers 
at heart nor acknowledge the legislations’ disparate racial affect. (K.W., 
2017; Graham, 2017). The cases of  Birmingham and Nashville make 
it clear that preemption is not only a way to limit the power of  more 
diverse cities in the South; more seriously, it codifies the oppression of  
Black workers and limits their access to quality jobs.  

WORKERS FIGHT BACK: STRATEGIES TO CIRCUMVENT 
PREEMPTION

Despite numerous obstacles, advocates and policymakers have 
made some headway against preemption and found intersectional, 
contemporary strategies for a contemporary problem. Cohen (2017) pairs 
traditional worker advocacy with creative techniques to create solutions 
that challenge contemporary preemption––for example, lobbying, using 
municipal administrative powers, and legally challenging legislatures.

Cohen (2017) argues that the first and perhaps the most obvious 
way to challenge legislatures is by lobbying and forming diverse 
coalitions among cities with the aim of  strengthening the power of  
local municipalities, amending legislation, and asking legislatures to end 
preemption permanently. For example, “A coalition of  grassroots groups 
in Louisiana have been lobbying state leaders for at least the past five 
years to lift families out of  poverty through an across-the-board wage 
increase” (Partnership for Working Families, 2019, p. 8). Of  course, this 
strategy seldom yields results in states with “strong red/blue divide or 
anti-urban animus” like the South (Cohen, 2017, para. 6). 

Cities may also take legal action to halt preemption (Cohen, 2017). 
Avenues for legal recourse include “claiming that a preemption bill 
discriminates against a protected class, impinges on a fundamental 
right, or is motivated by animus” (Bean & Strano, 2019, p. 21). After 

STILL FIGHTING RESHA T. SWANSON



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   75   74  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

the Alabama Legislature preempted Birmingham’s minimum wage 
ordinance, several fast food workers and local organizations joined a class 
action lawsuit. The plaintiffs argued that the State’s bill “perpetuates 
Alabama’s de jure policy of  white supremacy, in particular its suppression 
of  local black majorities through imposition of  white control by state 
government” (Koplowitz, 2019, para. 4). Unfortunately, the Eleventh 
Circuit Court of  Appeals dismissed the case on an improper filing 
technicality without considering the merits of  the argument (Koplowitz, 
2019). Cohen (2017) notes that smaller cities and municipalities with 
fewer resources may consider joining forces with other organizations, 
cities, and nonprofits when pursuing financially hefty cases against the 
state. 

Finally, Cohen (2017) asserts that in the absence of  legislative power, 
cities must utilize other powers, such as setting a city policy, creating 
a new program, or using the so-called power of  the purse. Although 
administration actions (much like Executive Orders) can be repealed 
and are subject to changing administrations and partisanship, Southern 
cities like Atlanta and Houston have used administrative means to success 
in circumventing preemption (Cohen, 2017). Atlanta, for example, 
increased the city employees’ minimum wage to $15 an hour over two 
years by allocating more money to employees’ salaries in the city budget, 
which avoided the state’s restrictions on raising municipal wages (Cohen, 
2017). To circumvent their Republican legislature’s hard-line stance on 
marijuana legalization, Houston city officials and the county district 
attorney used their enforcement powers to severely limit the arrest and 
prosecution of  individuals with small amounts of  marijuana, “leading 
to a de facto decriminalization of  marijuana” (Cohen, 2017, para. 9; 
Dart, 2017). In the difficult racial and political context of  Southern 
preemption, this solution may appear most appealing and yield the most 
success.

CONCLUSION 
From Reconstruction to the new millennium, Southern lawmakers 

have used preemption to oppress Black workers. Dillon’s Rule and post-

Reconstruction Black Codes laid a firm foundation for contemporary 
Black worker suppression through preemption. Under the guise of  
exercising state power over “out-of-control” municipalities, twenty-first 
century conservative lawmakers continue to strike down any attempt to 
strengthen worker protections made by more progressive (and often more 
Black) municipalities (Blair et al., 2020). The Alabama State Legislature 
prevented the passage of  Birmingham’s ordinance that raised the 
minimum wage. In Nashville, residents watched as their amendment to 
implement local-hire was reversed just a few weeks after its passage. 

Although deeply-entrenched white supremacy makes the prospect of  
any immediate progress seem bleak, worker advocates, legal experts, and 
nonprofit organizations continue to make headway against preemption. 
Victories in cities like Atlanta and Houston demonstrate the power 
of  lobbying, administrative action, and legal advocacy, and provide 
a framework for organizers and community members to continue 
advancing the rights of  Black workers.

The racial, political, economic, and community implications and 
effects of  preemption provide the perfect landscape for social work 
practice. Though social work is not traditionally linked to the fight for 
workers’ rights, modern-day preemption provides micro-, mezzo- and 
macro-level advocacy opportunities for practitioners--opportunities that 
demand comprehensive organizing, advocacy, and legislative solutions. 

Before his murder, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously supported 
Memphis sanitation workers striking for better treatment and wages 
(Craig, 2018). The day before he was assassinated, King delivered a 
passionate speech on the topic to the Bishop Charles Mason Temple in 
Memphis. He said:

But then the Good Samaritan came by, and he reversed the question: 
“If  I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?” That’s the 
question before you tonight. (Yes) Not, “If  I stop to help the sanitation 
workers, what will happen to my job?” Not, “If  I stop to help the 
sanitation workers, what will happen to all of  the hours that I usually 
spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?” (Yes) The 

STILL FIGHTING RESHA T. SWANSON



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   77   76  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

question is not, “If  I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to 
me?” The question is, “If  I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, 
what will happen to them?” That’s the question. (King, 1968, para. 30)

As we continue the centuries-old struggle for Black liberation and 
rights, we must recognize that no worker is truly free until Black workers 
are free. Freedom starts with challenging preemption in the South. 

REFERENCES 
Adler, B. (2016, March 30). State legislatures are undercutting their liberal cities — and 

are  unlikely to stop. Washington Post.  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/30/state-legislatures-are 

undercutting-their-liberal-cities-and-unlikely-to-stop/ 
Bauder, D. (2020, July 20). AP says it will capitalize Black but not white. AP News; 

Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/7e36c00c5af0436abc09e051261fff1f  
Bean, L., & Strano, M. (2019, July 11). Punching down: How states are suppressing local  

democracy. New America. newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/punching-
down/ 

Blair, H., Wolfe, J., & Worker, J. (2020, September 30). Preempting progress: State 
interference  in local policymaking prevents people of  color, women, and low-income 
workers from  making ends meet in the South. Economic Policy Institute. https://
www.epi.org/publication/preemption-in-the-south/ 

Beck, E. M., & Tolnay, S. E. (1990). The killing fields of  the deep south: The market for 
cotton and the lynching of  blacks, 1882-1930. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 
526–539. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095805

City of  Clinton v. Cedar Rapids & Missouri River Railroad (Iowa Supreme Court May 
12, 1868). https://cite.case.law/iowa/24/455/

Cohen, M. (2017, July 19). Four ways to fend off state preemption. Bloomberg.com. 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/a-practical-playbook-to-
beat-state-preemption

Congressional Research Services. (2019). Federal preemption: A legal primer. 
Congressional Research Services. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45825.pdf

Craig, B. (2018, April 2). Martin Luther King Jr. championed civil rights and unions. 
AFL-CIO. https://aflcio.org/2018/4/2/martin-luther-king-jr-championed-civil-
rights-and-unions

Dart, T. (2017, April 18). Houston’s new district attorney stands by her bold move 
to decriminalize marijuana. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2017/apr/18/houston-district-attorney-kim-ogg-marijuana-decriminalization-
texas

DuPuis, N., Langan, T., McFarland, C., Panettieri, A., & Rainwater, B. (2018). City rights 
in an  era of  preemption: A state-by-state analysis. National League of  Cities. https://
www.nlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NLC-SML-Preemption-Report-2017- 
pages.pdf  

Ebert, J. (2017, August 16). Divisions escalate between red states and blue cities. El Paso 
Times.  https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/politics/texlege/2017/08/15/
exclusive-political divisions-escalate-between-red-states-and-blue-cities/557806001/ 

Economic Policy Institute. (2019, August). Worker rights preemption in the U.S.: A map 
of  the  campaign to suppress worker rights in the states. Economic Policy Institute. 
https://www.epi.org/preemption-map/

Graham, D. A. (2017, February 2). Progressive cities vs. conservative states. The 
Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/red-state-blue-
city/513857/

Hansford, T. (2020). Dillon’s Rule and Home Rule: The history behind the two prevailing 
views on the powers of  local government and what that looks like in Alabama. 
American Journal of  Trial Advocacy, 44(1). https://cumberlandtrialjournal.
com/2020/08/11/dillons-rule-and-home-rule-the-history-behind-the-two-prevailing-
views-on-the-powers-of-local-government-and-what-that-looks-like-in-alabama/#_
edn37

Hunter v. City of  Pittsburgh, (United States Supreme Court November 18, 1907). 
https://cite.case.law/us/207/161/

K.W. (2017, October 9). How conservative states and liberal cities vie for control. The 
Economist. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/10/09/how-
conservative-states-and-liberal-cities-vie-for-control

King Jr., M. L. (1968, April 3). I’ve been to the mountaintop [In-Person]. https://
kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/ive-been-mountaintop-address-
delivered-bishop-charles-mason-temple

Koplowitz, H. (2019, December 14). Federal appeals court upholds dismissal of  
Birmingham  minimum wage suit. AL.Com; Alabama Media Group. https://www.
al.com/news/birmingham/2019/12/federal-appeals-court-upholds-dismissal of-
birmingham-minimum-wage-suit.html 

Merriam v. Moody’s Executors (Iowa Supreme Court June 25, 2868). https://cite.case.
law/iowa/25/163/

National League of  Cities. (2016, December 13). Cities 101 — delegation of  power. 
National  League of  Cities. https://www.nlc.org/resource/cities-101-delegation-of-
power/ 

 Nittle, N. K. (2021, January 28). How the Black Codes Limited African American 
Progress After the Civil War - HISTORY. www.history.com. https://www.history.
com/news/black-codes-reconstruction-slavery

STILL FIGHTING RESHA T. SWANSON



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  |   79   78  |  COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. XIX  

Partnership for Working Families. (2019, May). For all of  us, by all of  us: Challenging 
state  interference to advance gender and racial justice. Partnership for Working 
Families.  https://www.forworkingfamilies.org/sites/default/files/publications/
PWF%20Gender%20 Preemption_0.pdf

People ex rel. Le Roy v. Hurlbut (Michigan Supreme Court November 29, 1871). https://
cite.case.law/mich/24/44/

PBS. (2017). Slavery v. peonage. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-
name/themes/peonage/

PBS. (2021). Rebuilding the South After the War | American Experience | PBS. Www.
pbs.org. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/reconstruction-
rebuilding-south-after-war/

Phillips, L. E. (2017). Impeding innovation: State preemption of  progressive local 
regulations. Columbia Law Review, 117(8). https://doi.org/

Roth, Z. (2016, February 26). Birmingham Raises Minimum Wage and Alabama Takes 
it Away.  NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/birmingham-raises-
minimum-wage alabama-takes-it-away-n526806 

Russell, J. D., & Bostrom, A. (2016). Federalism, Dillon Rule and Home Rule. 
In acce.us. American City County Exchange. https://www.alec.org/app/
uploads/2016/01/2016-ACCE-White-Paper-Dillon-House-Rule-Final.pdf

Shermer, E. T. (2018, April 24). The right to work really means the right to work for less. 
The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/
wp/2018/04/24/the-right-to-work-really-means-the-right-to-work-for-less/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Multiple States. Www.
Census.Gov.  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/TN,AR,GA,FL,AL,MS/
PST045219?

United States Senate. (2019, February 5). U.S. Senate: Landmark Legislation: Thirteenth, 
Fourteenth, & Fifteenth Amendments. Senate.gov. https://www.senate.gov/
artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilWarAmendments.htm

U.S. Constitution. art. VI, cl. 2.
 Woodman, S. (2016, April 4). Nashville Voted To Give Poor People, Locals New 

Construction  Jobs. But the State GOP Blocked It. In These Times. https://
inthesetimes.com/article/republican-prohibition-on-nashville-municipal-local-hires

Worthman, P. B. (1969). Black workers and labor unions in Birmingham, Alabama, 
1897–1904. Labor History, 10(3), 375–407. Taylor & Francis Online. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00236566908584085

STILL FIGHTING RESHA T. SWANSON

RESHA SWANSON graduated from the University of  
Alabama in 2018 with a Bachelor of  Social Work and a Bachelor 
of  Arts in Spanish. This spring, she will graduate from Columbia 
School of  Social Work with a Master of  Science in Social Work in 
Advanced Policy Practice concentrating in Contemporary Social 
Issues. Resha currently lives in Birmingham, Alabama, where she 
works as a policy coordinator at a low-wage worker center.


