Clause of the federal Constitution. The trial court dismissed this claim as follows: The Supremacy Clause is not a source of any federal rights. It is a conflict of law provision that declares truth which flows immediately and necessarily from the institutions of a federal government. For this Court to find that there is a private right of action under the Supremacy Clause would substantively change the federal rule established by Congress in the [CSA], and as such, is disapproved. We agree. See Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 1383, 191 L.Ed.2d 471 (2015) (stating that the Supremacy Clause “instructs courts what to do when state and federal law clash”); Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 613, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979) (<HOLDING>); see also Michigan Corrs. Org. v. Michigan
recognizing that the supremacy clause does not of its own force create rights holding in a bankruptcy context that any state legislation which frustrates the full effectiveness of federal law is rendered invalid by the supremacy clause holding that municipal ordinance was preempted by frsa and void under supremacy clause recognizing that the supremacy clause is not a source of any federal rights holding the illinois statute at issue in templeton invalid under the supremacy clause