16 . Id. at 160-61, 84 S.Ct. at 621-22. See note 14 supra. 17 . 5 U.S. 103, 1 Cranch 103 (1801). 18 . Id. at 107, 1 Cranch at 107. 19 . Id. at 110, 1 Cranch at 110. 20 . Id. at 110, 1 Cranch at 110. 21 . See, e. g., United States v. Alabama, 362 U.S. 602, 604, 80 S.Ct. 924, 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 982 (1960) (per curiam) (applying to case pending on appeal Civil Rights Act of 1960 which created cause of action against state); Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 78, 63 S.Ct. 465, 468, 87 L.Ed. 621 (1943) (applying amendment to Interstate Commerce Act enhancing standards required for granting to single carrier both common carrier and contract carrier status to pending permit application process); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 60-62, 61 S.Ct. 399, 400, 401, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941) (<HOLDING>); Vanderbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 311
holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state holding that subsequent congressional statute regulating registration of aliens retroactively preempted state law holding the state law claims were not preempted