Selective State Supremacy: Why AG Hilgers’ Lawsuit Against Lincoln Raises Constitutional Concerns
Dear Friends-
The Lincoln City Council raised Lincoln’s minimum wage to $15.00/hr.
Hilgers is suing.
Here’s my response:
The Selective Defense of “State Supremacy”: Nebraska’s Double Standard on Rights and Local Control
Nebraska’s Attorney General is suing Lincoln over its local minimum wage ordinance, aggressively asserting state supremacy to enforce uniform wage rules. This swift legal action raises a serious and uncomfortable question: Why does the state move so decisively to protect commercial uniformity, yet remain largely silent when local officials trample on citizens’ core constitutional rights?
Nebraska’s Constitution opens with a clear, uncompromising declaration in Article I, Section 1: All persons are by nature free and independent, with inherent and inalienable rights—including life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms. These rights “shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.” Governments exist to secure these God-given rights and draw their powers from the consent of the governed. There is no emergency exception. No hidden clause allowing rights to be suspended for political convenience. And no constitutional preference for statewide commercial uniformity over individual liberty.
Economic Reality vs. Rigid Uniformity
A single, one-size-fits-all minimum wage imposed across Nebraska ignores profound differences in cost of living, housing prices, and business realities between thriving urban centers like Lincoln and quieter rural counties. What supports a family in a high-cost city can look entirely different from what sustains one in a low-overhead rural community.
Whether Lincoln’s specific ordinance represents good or bad policy is secondary. The deeper issue is whether it’s constitutional or practical to ban all local flexibility in response to measurable local economic conditions. The state argues that uniformity prevents a “patchwork” and safeguards commerce. Many Nebraskans counter that imposing identical rules on vastly different economies is itself unrealistic and damaging.
What Preemption Actually Means Here
Under the legal doctrine of preemption, state law overrides conflicting local ordinances, especially when the state has fully occupied a regulatory field. Even as a Home Rule city, Lincoln’s authority remains “subject to the Constitution and laws of this state.” Attorney General Hilgers contends that Lincoln’s ordinance conflicts with the statewide Wage and Hour Act—particularly on youth wages and annual increase caps—and that minimum wage regulation is inherently a matter of statewide concern requiring uniform rules.
The Clear Pattern of Selective Enforcement
This case does not exist in a vacuum. Lincoln Mayor Leirion Gaylor Baird has a track record of bold local executive actions. During the COVID period, she invoked broad emergency powers to impose business restrictions, capacity limits, and mandates that many viewed as direct violations of citizens’ inalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of a livelihood under Article I, Section 1. She later issued orders restricting firearms on public city property, directly challenging the Legislature’s statewide Constitutional Carry law (LB 77).
In those instances of significant local overreach into fundamental rights, the state—including legislative leadership—largely stayed on the sidelines. Yet when the city council passed an ordinance addressing a local economic issue, the Attorney General acted quickly and forcefully with a direct lawsuit to enforce state supremacy.
This contrast creates a troubling appearance of a double standard: rapid, aggressive state intervention to enforce commercial uniformity, paired with notable restraint when municipal power restricted citizens’ daily liberties and livelihoods.
The Core Principle at Stake
The real issue is not the specific level of Lincoln’s minimum wage. It is consistency and constitutional priority.
Our Constitution places inalienable individual rights first. It contains no emergency loopholes. It demands that both state and local governments respect those rights with equal seriousness. Where genuine economic differences exist across regions, some local flexibility is often more rational than blanket uniformity imposed from the center.
Nebraskans deserve governance that consistently defends God-given rights against overreach—whether that overreach originates with a mayor or with the state itself. When state power is wielded aggressively against local wage decisions but passively when individual freedoms are on the line, it erodes public trust and treats our Constitution as a selective tool of political convenience rather than an unshakeable shield for the people.
Respectfully Submitted-
Robert J. Borer
https://nebraskaexaminer.com/.../nebraska-ag-sues.../...
I respectively disagree with your statement “Whether Lincoln’s specific ordinance represents good or bad policy is secondary.” Generally, I understand your comparisons, but economics impacts everyone. In this instance, youth are treated as adults when they are not. With a flat singular minimum wage, youth are actively discriminated for lacking work skills. See my article at https://andrewlsullivan.substack.com/p/killing-youth-employment