Page:International Code Council v. UpCodes (2020).pdf/47

 to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for supplementing state regulation. … Finally, state law may be preempted to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.” Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. Cuomo, 928 F.2d 519, 522 (2d Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The third type of state law preemption[,] … so-called conflict preemption, occurs either when compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility, … or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Id. at 522–23 (internal quotation marks omitted).

ICC argues that if government adoption of a model code prevents enforcement of copyright in the model code text that was enacted, state action would effectively destroy a federal right and thus violate the Supremacy Clause. The BOCA court rejected essentially the same arguments, denying that state or local adoption of enacted building codes would present any preemption issues. It was not the case “that state adoption of the BOCA Code destroyed BOCA’s copyright by operation of state law, but rather that the action triggered application of a doctrine of federal law under which BOCA’s material, to the extent embodied in the