Maine Forest Products Council v. Cormier, 51 F.4th 1

Maine enacted P.L. 280 (Me. Stat. tit. 12, § 8006) banning non–"residents of the United States" (expressly excluding those eligible under H-2A) from driving vehicles that transport forest products within Maine, with significant fines for violators.
Sponsors framed the law as a response to Canadian truck drivers using the federal H-2A agricultural visa to haul Maine logs and depressing local wages.
Plaintiffs (Maine Forest Products Council, Pepin Lumber, and Stéphane Audet, a Canadian H-2A driver) sued in federal court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief; the district court preliminarily enjoined P.L. 280 on preemption and equal protection grounds.
On appeal the State challenged only the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits (preemption); the other preliminary-injunction factors were not contested on appeal.
The federal H-2A program permits employers who satisfy statutory and regulatory requirements to hire temporary foreign agricultural labor when qualified U.S. workers are unavailable and includes procedural safeguards (job orders, SWA clearance, wage floors, and Department of Labor certification).
The First Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding P.L. 280 likely preempted as an obstacle to the federal H-2A program.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether P.L. 280 is preempted as an obstacle to the federal H-2A program	P.L. 280 conflicts with the implicit federal right of employers to hire H-2A workers once federal criteria are met; it frustrates Congress’s scheme	P.L. 280 protects Maine workers and complements H-2A; presumption against preemption applies	Court: Likely preempted — P.L. 280 directly conflicts with and undoes the federal H-2A framework
Whether H-2A regulations make compliance with "applicable Federal and State" laws (including P.L. 280) part of federal certification (i.e., permit a state veto)	Regulatory phrase "other employment-related laws" is limited to working-conditions laws and does not encompass P.L. 280	The regulation requires adherence to applicable state employment laws, so P.L. 280 can bar H-2A job orders	Court: Regulation read narrowly; P.L. 280 is not an "employment-conditions" law and cannot give states a veto over H-2A certifications

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (state law preempted where it obstructs federal immigration scheme)
Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (formulation of obstacle preemption)
Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) (conflict preemption framed as state law conflicting with federal rights conferred on private actors)
Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) (examine federal statute’s purpose to determine preemption)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard)
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (presumption against preemption where states traditionally regulate)
United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) (presumption inapplicable where there is significant federal presence)
Kansas v. Garcia, 140 S. Ct. 791 (2020) (interpretive gloss on Arizona re: rights conferred on private actors)
Overdevest Nurseries, L.P. v. Walsh, 2 F.4th 977 (D.C. Cir.) (describing H-2A program wage protections)