68 L.Ed.2d 576 (1981). “Consideration of issues arising under the Supremacy Clause ‘start[s] with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States [are] not to be superseded by ... Federal Act unless that [is] the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’ Accordingly, ‘[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone’ of pre-emption analysis.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (citations omitted). Congressional intent with respect to preemption may be express or implied. See Hillsborough County, Fla. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 713, 105 S.Ct. 2371, 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985). State law is expressly -preempted when Congress uses clear preemptive language in the federal statute or regulation. See id. (<HOLDING>). Absent express preemptive language, a federal
holding ban preempted by federal communications commission regulations recognizing state laws can be preempted by federal regulations as well as by federal legislation holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that 1983 authorizes suits to redress violations by state officials of rights created by federal statutes as well as the federal constitution holding that plaintiffs state law tort actions against private military contractors working for the federal government were preempted by federal law