Nebraska Attorney General Opinion 26-003 — Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Opinion No. 26-003— May 7, 2026

OPINION FOR SENATOR BALLARD AND
SENATOR RAYBOULD

Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal

Summary: A city charter is subordinate to the Constitution and
laws of statewide concern. Any ordinance passed by a city is thus
void if it (1) is inconsistent with state law, and (2) regulates or
otherwise interferes with a matter of statewide concern. The City of
Lincoln’s proposed local minimum wage would conflict with state
minimum wage law, which is a matter of statewide concern. The
City thus lacks authority to impose a local minimum wage.

You have asked for an Attorney General opinion
regarding the lawfulness of a proposal the Lincoln City
Council is considering that would amend the Lincoln City
Charter to adopt a municipal minimum wage (the “Local
Wage Proposal”).! Specifically, you ask—for the purpose of
crafting legislation Senator Ballard intends to introduce
next legislative session—whether the Local Wage Proposal
conflicts with state law and what measures would be
necessary to ensure statewide uniformity in the minimum
wage. We conclude the Local Wage Proposal would
impermissibly conflict with a law addressing a matter of
statewide concern. Accordingly, because the Local Wage
Proposal, if enacted, is likely invalid, no new legislative
action is necessary to ensure statewide uniformity.

Under authority of the Nebraska Constitution, the
City of Lincoln has adopted a home rule charter, which

1 See Attachment A.

DEPT. OF JUSTICE
STATE OF NEBRASKA

OFFICIAL

MAY 07 2026

MICHAEL T. HILGERS

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026)
gives it authority to regulate local matters even if the
Legislature has not expressly delegated authority to
regulate them. But home rule charters a1·e still subject to
state law, meaning a home-rule ordinance is invalid if it (1)
is inconsistent with state law (2) with respect to a matter
of statewide concern. The Local Wage Proposal is
inconsistent with state law because the Legislature has
already comprehensively regulated minimum wage under
the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act (the "Wage Act" or the
"Act"). The Legislature intended for the Act to create a
single statewide minimum wage. The Local Wage Proposal
thus regulates a matter of statewide concern. If passed, the
Proposal would affect labor markets, prices, and hiring
practices beyond Lincoln's borders. We thus find the Local
Wage Proposal likely to be invalid under state law.
Section I of our opinion provides the relevant
constitutional background. Section II contrasts Lincoln's
Local Wage Proposal with the State's Wage Act. Section III
outlines the legal standard for determining whether the
Local Wage Proposal would be valid under state law.
Section IV applies the relevant legal standard to the Local
Wage Proposal, and Section V summarizes our opinion.
I.
We start with a constitutional background of state
and municipal authority. When the United States
authorized Nebraska to "form for themselves a constitution
and state government,"2 and eventually admitted
Nebraska into the Union,3 the United States recognized
the sovereignty of the State of Nebraska. The United States
did not give the City of Lincoln or other municipalities a
2 Enabling Act of Congress, 38 Cong. Ch. 59, 13 Stat. 47
(April 19, 1864).
3 Nebraska Statehood Act, ch. 36, 14 Stat. 391 (1867).
2
..
..
..

Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal
slice of that sovereignty. Municipalities are "creature[s] of
the Legislature," Pro. Firefighters of Omaha v. City of
Omaha, 243 Neb. 166, 174 (1993), and are thus entirely
subject to the State-they may exercise only those powers
the State gives them. Johnson v. Vill. of Polk, 319 Neb. 352,
361 (2025); Obitz v. Airport Auth. of City of Red Cloud, 181
Neb. 410, 418 (1967).
Nebraska has delegated authority to municipalities
over certain matters. The State Constitution gives cities
with a population of more than 5,000 inhabitants authority
to frame a charter creating a municipal government. Neb.
Const. art. XI, § 2. But municipal governments are
generally limited in authority. Municipal governments can
exercise only those powers expressly granted to them by
the Legislature, or those powers necessary or implied
within an express power, or powers indispensable to the
purposes of the municipality. Johnson, 319 Neb. at 361
(citing Dawson County v. Clark, 58 Neb. 756, 762 (1899)).
In 1920, the People of Nebraska passed a
constitutional amendment that gave larger cities more
authority over local affairs. The amendment permitted
cities of over 100,000 people to adopt a "home rule charter"
by a majority vote of the qualified electors of such city. Neb.
Const. art. XI, § 5. A "home rule charter" "render[s] cities
independent of state legislation as to all subjects of strictly
municipal concern." State ex rel. Martin v. Cunningham,
158 Neb. 708, 710 (1954). In other words, home rule
charters can regulate local matters even without express
authority from the Legislature. But home rule charters are
not without limits. Home rule charters are ultimately
"subject to the Constitution and laws of the State." Neb.
Const. art. XI, § 5.
3
...
l •
" -..
,.
,\
...
•'
I '

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026)
The 	City 	of Lincoln 	has 	adopted 	a 	home 	rule
charter. 4
II.
The Local Wage Proposal 	would amend 	Lincoln's
home rule charter 	to create 	a municipal 	minimum 	wage.
The Local Wage Proposal sets an initial minimum wage at
the 	same 	rate 	as 	the 	State's-$15 	per 	hour 	through
December 	31, 2026. 	Local Wage Proposal 	§ 3. But 	the
Proposal 	differs 	from the 	Wage Act in two 	significant
ways-the 	inflation 	adjustment 	percentage 	and the youth
m1mmum wage.
The Local Wage Proposal would annually 	increase
Lincoln's minimum 	wage in proportion to cost-of-living as
determined 	by the U.S. 	Department 	of Labor's August-to-
August 	consumer 	price 	index 	("CPI"). 5 	Local 	Wage
Proposal§ 	3. For reference, 	CPI increased 	by 2.8% in the
twelve months 	ending in August 	2025, 6 2.6% for August
2024, 7 	and 	3.4% for August 	2023. 8 For 	2026, 	CPI 	is
4 The full charter is available online at https://tinyurl.
com/msr9xce3.
5 Specifically 	for 	urban 	consumers 	(CPI-U) 	for 	the
Midwest Region. Local Wage Proposal§ 	3. The local minimum
wage 	would 	also be rounded 	up to the nearest 	$.05 benchmark.
Id.
6 Consumer Price Index, Midwest Region -August 	2025,
U.S. 	Bureau 	of 	Lab. 	Stats. 	(Sept. 	11, 	2025),
https://perma.cc/M723-MS2B.
7 Consumer Price Index, Midwest Region -August 	2024,
U.S. 	Bureau 	of 	Lab. 	Stats. 	(Sept. 	11, 	2024),
https://perma.ccNE8D-Q53F.
s Consumer Price Index, Midwest Region -August 	2023,
U.S. 	Bureau 	of 	Lab. 	Stats. 	(Sept. 	13, 	2023),
https://perma.cc/CED8-HRJR.
4

Lawfulness 	of Local Minimum 	Wage Proposal
increasing 	at around 	3%.9 At that 	rate, 	under 	the Local
Wage Proposal, Lincoln's minimum wage for 2027 would be
$15.45 per hour.
The statewide 	Wage Act previously 	used the same
inflation 	percentage. 	See Neb. 	Rev. 	Stat. 	§ 48-1203(2)
(Cum. Supp. 2024). But under L.B. 258, passed in the most
recent 	legislative 	session, 	the Act's inflation 	percentage
will be a fixed annual 	rate 	of 1. 75%. L.B. 258. § 1, 109th
Leg., 2d Sess. 	(2026) (enacted). 	Under 	this 	formula, 	the
2027 statewide 	minimum wage will be $15.26, nearly $0.20
less per hour than 	what 	it is estimated 	to be under 	the
Local Wage Proposal.
The Local Wage Proposal 	also sets out a different
standard 	than the Wage Act for paying minors. The Act, as
amended by L.B. 258, provides that "an employer may pay
a youth 	((14-16 years 	old)] a minimum 	wage of thirteen
dollars 	and fifty cents per hour." L.B. 258 § 1. The Local
Wage Proposal 	provides 	no similar 	exception-youth 	are
paid at the standard 	minimum 	wage. 10
We 	next 	turn 	to 	the 	standard 	for 	determining
whether 	the Local Wage Proposal's 	differences with state
law would render it invalid.
III.
As 	discussed, 	the 	Constitution 	gives 	home 	rule
cities like Lincoln authority 	to govern their 	own affairs,
including 	on matters 	not expressly 	delegated 	to them by
the Legislature. 	But home rule charters 	remain "subject to
9 Consumer Price Index, Midwest Region - 	March 2026,
U.S. 	Bureau 	of 	Lab. 	Stats. 	(April 	10, 	2026),
https://perma.cdD83S-4VYE.
10 Except that children working for their own parents are
not subject to the Local Wage Proposal. Local Wage Proposal § 2.
5

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026)
the Constitution 	and laws of the State." 	Neb. Const. art.
XI, § 5. So a home-rule 	ordinance 	that "is repugnant 	to, or
inconsistent 	with" state law is invalid. State u. Albarenga,
313 Neb. 72, 83 (2022).
The Nebraska 	Supreme 	Court has adopted 	a two-
part inquiry 	to determine 	whether 	a home-rule 	ordinance
meets this standard 	and is therefore 	preempted. 	The first
part 	asks whether 	the ordinance 	is actually 	"inconsistent
with □ State law." Id. The central 	question 	is whether 	the
home rule charter 	has created "a conflict of authority" 	with
state law. Axberg u. City of Lincoln, 141 Neb. 55, 58 (1942).
If it has, the Court then determines 	whether 	the conflict is
over 	a 	matter 	of "state-wide 	concern" 	or 	only 	"local
municipal concern." Cunningham, 	158 Neb. at 710. A state
statute 	prevails 	over a conflicting 	home rule 	charter 	on
matters 	of "state-wide 	concern." 	Id. 	But 	a home 	rule
charter 	prevails 	over 	a 	conflicting 	state 	statute 	with
respect to matters 	of "municipal concern." Id.
Thus, the Local Wage Proposal would be invalid if
it (1) is inconsistent 	with 	state 	law and 	(2) regulates 	a
matter 	of statewide 	concern. See Albarenga, 313 Neb. at 84.
IV.
Applying this standard, 	we conclude that 	the Local
Wage Proposal would likely violate state law. We find that
the Local Wage Proposal (1) is inconsistent 	with the State's
minimum 	wage 	statutes 	and 	(2) regulates 	a matter 	of
statewide 	concern.
A.
The 	first 	inquiry 	is whether 	Lincoln's 	mm1IDum
wage would be inconsistent 	with state 	law-particularly,
6

Lawfulness of Local Minimum 	Wage Proposal
the Wage Act. See Neb. Rev. Stat.§§ 	48-1201 to -1209. We
find would be.
The Nebraska 	Supreme 	Court has recognized three
ways 	(borrowed 	from federal 	preemption 	jurisprudence)
that a municipal 	law can be inconsistent 	with state law: (1)
express 	preemption, 	(2) field preemption, 	and (3) conflict
preemption. 	Albarenga, 	313 Neb. 	at 	84 (2022). Express
preemption 	occurs where 	a state 	statute 	explicitly 	states
that 	it preempts 	any municipal 	law on the same 	subject
matter. 	We have found no such provision 	under 	state 	law
with 	respect 	to 	minimum 	wage. 11 Thus, 	we 	turn 	our
attention 	to the 	latter 	two categories-field 	preemption
and conflict preemption.
1.
We find the Local Wage Proposal is field preempted
by state law. Field preemption 	occurs when the Legislature
has passed 	"a comprehensive 	scheme of legislation" 	such
that it can be "inferred" that 	the legislature 	intended 	it to
preempt 	local laws. Hauptman, 	O'Brien, Wolf & Lathrop,
P.C. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 310 Neb. 147, 154 (2021). The
Legislature 	has 	provided 	such 	a 	comprehensive 	wage
scheme in the Wage Act.
The Wage Act enshrines 	the Legislature's 	holistic
judgment 	about how to structure 	wages across the State. It
sets 	a general 	minimum 	wage "at levels consistent 	with
11 As noted, your opinion request indicates that you are
crafting and Senator Ballard plans to introduce legislation in the
next legislative session designed to preserve a uniform statewide
minimum wage. While we think a municipal minimum wage is
already 	preempted 	by 	current 	state 	law, 	adding 	express
preemption language to the Wage Act (e.g., "This Act shall
preempt any municipal law regulating wages") would remove
any lingering doubt.
7

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026)
[workers'] health, 	efficiency and general well-being." Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 48-1201 (Reissue 2021). The Act also provides
targeted 	exemptions-including 	for 	agricultural
employees, babysitters, 	and apprentices-and 	sets a lower
rate 	for minors, 	tipped 	employees, 	and student-learners.
Neb. 	Rev. 	Stat. 	§§ 48-1202, 	1203. 	It 	also 	requires
employers 	to post notices of employees' 	wage rights 	and
creates enforcement mechanisms. 	Id. §§ 48-1205, -1206.
The Nebraska 	Supreme Court has held a home-rule
ordinance invalid in the face of a similarly 	comprehensive
state statute. 	In City of Omaha Hum. Rels. Dep't ex rel. Guy
v. City Wide Rock & Excavating 	Co., 201 Neb. 405, 408
(1978), the Court held that the Nebraska 	Fair Employment
Act 	preempted 	Omaha's 	fair 	employment 	practices
ordinance 	because 	the 	state 	law was "a comprehensive
law" on the same subject matter. The Fair Employment Act
is similar in scope to the Wage Act. Both set out a general
purpose, 	compare Neb. Rev. Stat. 	§ 48-1101.01 with id. §
48-1201, have discreet definitions, 	compare id. § 48-1102,
with 	id. 	§ 48-1202, 	regulate 	employment 	conditions,
compare 	id. 	§ 48-1104, 	with 	id. 	§ 48-1203(1), 	provide
exceptions, 	compare id. §§ 48-1102, 	ll03, 	with 	id. § 48-
1203(3), 	(4), 	and 	L.B. 	258 	§ 1, 	supra, 	and 	create
enforcement 	mechanisms, 	compare id. § 48-1116-19, 	with
id. § 48-1206. The Court in City Wide Rock concluded that
the Legislature's 	scheme left no room for municipalities 	to
adopt their own labor regulations. 	201 Neb at 408; accord
Midwest 	Emps. 	Council, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 	177 Neb.
877, 887 (1964); see also Op. Att'y Gen. No. 12-009, 2012
WL 1649760 (May 3, 2012) (opining that 	municipalities
cannot expand protected classifications 	for purposes of the
Fair 	Employment 	Practices 	Act). So too here-the 	Wage
Act is comprehensive 	and was not intended 	to leave room
for municipal wage laws.
Legislative 	history 	supports 	that 	the 	Legislature
did not intend 	for municipalities 	to enter 	the minimum
8

Lawfulness 	of Local Minimum 	Wage Proposal
wage field. See Midwest Emps., 177 Neb. at 887 (reviewing
Legislative 	history 	to analyze 	whether 	the 	Legislature
intended 	state 	law to occupy the field of fair employment
practices). 	Prior to the passage 	of L.B. 258 in this year's
legislative 	session, 	Nebraska's 	minimum 	wage increased
annually 	according to the CPL Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1203(2)
(Cum. Supp. 	2024). L.B. 258 amended 	that 	provision 	to
create 	a fixed 	1. 75% rate. 	L.B. 258 § 1. When 	Senator
Raybould 	introduced 	L.B. 258, 	she 	explained 	that 	the
intention 	of the 	fixed rate 	was "to provide 	certainty 	to
businesses 	across 	the state 	who are 1·equired to comply
with 	this 	mandate." 	Transcript, 	L.B. 258, Business 	and
Labor Committee, 	109th Leg., 1st Sess. 58 (Feb. 24, 2025).
The bill was meant to avoid "larger than expected increases
to the minimum 	wage rates" that create "extreme impacts
on employers," 	as happened 	in other 	states 	"with wages
tied to CPI increases." Id. at 59.
Just 	before the bill crossed the finish line, Senator
Raybould 	again 	explained 	on the floor that 	she intended
the bill to replace the fluctuating 	CPI inflation 	percentage
with 	"something 	that 	is 	fixed 	and 	predictable." 	Floor
Debate, L.B. 258, 109th Leg., 2d Sess. 3 (Feb. 5, 2026). She
explained 	that it was important 	for businesses 	"to be able
to predict 	... who they can hire 	and how many they can
hire." 	Id. 	Senator 	Hansen 	explained 	the 	bill's 	modest
inflation percentage 	would protect low-skill jobs: "[A] high
minimum 	wage 	law 	is, in reality, 	a law that 	requires
employers to discriminate 	against workers with low skills."
Id. at 26. And Senator 	Clouse explained 	that 	the youth
minim um wage gave small businesses 	"room for options" to
"help them create 	... jobs instead 	of than killing the jobs."
Id. at 24.
Similar 	comments 	from 	the 	Legislative 	history
abound. 	But the import 	is clear: The Legislature 	created
the fixed growth percentage 	and youth minimum 	wage to
give employers predictability 	and to protect jobs for minors
9

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026)
and 	low-skill 	workers. 	The Local Wage Proposal 	would
frustrate 	these purposes by reverting 	Lincoln to a variable
inflation 	rate 	and 	by eliminating 	the 	youth 	minimum
wage.
It may be suggested that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1208
(Reissue 2021) shows that the Legislature 	did not intend to
occupy the field of minimum 	wage. That statute 	provides
that 	"[any] standards 	relating 	to minimum 	wage 	... in
effect on October 23, 1967, by or under any other law ofthis
state, 	which are more favorable 	to employees than 	those
applicable 	to such employees 	under 	the 	[Wage Act], ....
shall continue 	in full force and effect." But 	that 	statute
protected 	only laws in effect in 1967 when the Wage Act
was passed. The Legislature 	was aware of those laws and
did not intend to upend them. The Legislature 	could have
applied the same protection 	to any law-including 	those
later 	in time-that 	set a higher minimum 	wage than 	the
Act. It did not. Further, 	the 	protection 	applies 	only to
wages set by "other laws of this state." While municipal
ordinances 	are no doubt laws "within" the State, 	they are
not 	necessarily 	laws 	"of' 	the 	State. 	And 	when 	the
Legislature 	intends 	to 	include 	"municipal 	ordinances"
within 	a statute's 	ambit, it expressly 	includes 	them. 	See,
e.g., Neb. Rev. Stat.§ 	48-1124 (Reissue 2021); id.§ 	74-594
(Reissue 2018). The Legislature 	simply did not authorize
municipalities 	to replace the minimum wage set by the Act.
In sum, we find that 	the Legislature 	intended 	the
comprehensive 	Wage Act to occupy the field of minimum
wage law in Nebraska.
3.
We also find that 	at least part 	of the Local Wage
Proposal-and 	perhaps 	all of it-is 	conflict preempted 	by
state 	law. Conflict preemption 	occurs when "a local law
actually 	conflicts with state law." Hauptman, 	310 Neb. at
10

Lawfulness of Local Minimum 	Wage Proposal
154. "[T]he fact that a local law is more stringent 	than state
law does not by itself lead to conflict preemption." 	Butler
Cnty. Dairy, L.L.C. v. Butler 	Cnty., 285 Neb. 	408, 436
(2013). Thus, "where both an ordinance 	and a statute 	are
prohibitory 	and the only difference between 	them is that
the ordinance 	goes further 	in its prohibition," 	there is no
conflict. 	Id. On the 	other 	hand, 	when 	state 	law is not
merely 	prohibitory, 	but 	instead 	blesses 	a 	particular
practice, a municipality 	cannot "forbid what the legislature
has 	expressly 	licensed, 	authorized, 	or required." 	Butler
Cnty. Dairy, 285 Neb. at 436--37 (quoting Phelps, Inc. v.
City 	of 	Hastings, 	152 	Neb. 	651, 	657 	(1950)); 	accord
Johnson, 319 Neb. at 366-67.
In at least 	one respect, 	the Local Wage Proposal
forbids what 	state 	law blesses. The Local Wage Proposal
does not provide a youth minimum 	wage. Employers 	must
pay teenagers 	the same rate 	they pay adults. 	The Wage
Act, 	on 	the 	other 	hand, 	now 	expressly 	authorizes
employers to pay 14-16 year-olds a lower minimum 	wage:
"[A]n 	employer 	may 	pay 	a 	youth 	minimum 	wage 	of
[$13.50]." L.B. 258 § 1 (emphasis 	added). But paying a 15-
year-old 	$13.50 per hour 	would violate 	the 	Local Wage
Proposal. The Local Wage Proposal thus forbids what the
Wage Act expressly authorizes.
We also think 	that 	it is an open question 	whether
the 	Local 	Wage 	Proposal's 	general 	minimum 	wage 	is
conflict preempted 	by the Wage Act. The plain text of the
Wage Act is affirmative, 	not prohibitive. 	It provides 	that
employers "shall pay ... a minimum wage." Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 48-1203(2). Of course, 	the implied 	flip side is that 	an
employer "shall not" pay less than the minimum wage. But
the statute's 	affirmative 	phrasing 	is arguably 	an express
authorization 	for employers to pay at the minimum 	wage.
See Ky. Restaurant 	Ass'n 	v. Louisville/ Jefferson 	Cnty.
Metro Gov., 501 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Ky. 2016) (holding 	a
similarly 	worded 	Kentucky 	statute 	granted 	express
11

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026)
authority 	to 	pay 	the 	state 	minimum 	wage 	and 	local
ordinance 	setting 	a higher 	minimum 	wage was invalid
because 	it "prohibits 	what 	the 	[state] 	statute 	expressly
permits"); 	Wholesale Laundry 	Bd. of Trade, Inc. v. City of
New 	York, 17 A.D.2d 327, 329 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div.
1963) (invalidating 	local minimum wage because it "forbids
a hiring 	at a wage which the 	state 	law permits 	and so
prohibits 	what 	the 	state 	law 	allows" 	and 	noting 	that
"[s]emantic exercises in this connection cannot change the
concept"). In other words, by saying "you must pay at least
X," the statute 	is (at least arguably) 	expressing 	that "you
are authorized 	to pay X." See id.
The expressed 	purpose 	of the Wage Act supports
this interpretation. 	The purpose of the Act is not only "to
establish 	a minimum 	wage for all workers," 	but also "to
safeguard 	existing 	minimum 	wage 	compensation
standards 	which 	are 	adequate 	to maintain 	the 	health,
efficiency and general 	well-being 	of workers." 	Neb. Rev.
Stat. 	§ 48-1201 	(emphasis 	added). 	By 	establishing 	a
minimum 	wage, the Legislature 	determined 	the rate that
was 	"adequate 	to 	maintain 	the 	health, 	efficiency 	and
general 	well-being 	of workers." 	Thus, 	the 	Local Wage
Proposal 	may 	directly 	conflict 	with 	state 	law 	when 	it
forbids 	employers 	from 	paying 	a rate 	the 	Legislature
determined 	to 	be 	"adequate 	to 	maintain 	the 	health,
efficiency and general well-being of workers."
4.
In sum, we find that 	the Local Wage Proposal 	is
field preempted 	by the Wage Act because the Legislature
intended 	the Act to occupy the field of minimum 	wage.
That 	finding 	alone is sufficient 	to find the 	Local Wage
Proposal 	is inconsistent 	with state 	law. But we also find
the Local Wage Proposal's 	youth minimum 	wage (or lack
thereof) 	is conflict preempted 	by the Act. The Proposal's
12

Lawfulness of Local Minimum 	Wage Proposal
general minimum wage may also be conflict preempted 	by
the Act. The Proposal is thus inconsistent 	with state law.
B.
The next inquiry is whether 	the minimum 	wage is
a "matter 	of statewide 	concern." Even if the Local Wage
Proposal is inconsistent 	with state law, it is still valid if it
governs 	a 	matter 	of only 	municipal 	concern 	and 	not
statewide concern. Seep. 6, supra. A law regulates 	a matter
of statewide 	concern when it "involv[es] a public need or
policy" affecting "the people of the state." Omaha Parking
Auth. 	u. City of Omaha, 163 Neb. 97, 104 (1956). We are
confident that the appropriate 	minimum 	wage is a matter
of statewide 	concern.
The Nebraska 	Supreme 	Court 	has 	already 	twice
held 	that 	"labor 	relations 	and 	practices" 	or 	"fair
employment 	practices" 	"are matters 	of statewide 	concern
and not of purely local concern." City Wide Rock, 201 Neb.
at 408; Mw. Emps. Council, 177 Neb. at 886. Thus, Omaha
ordinances 	that 	attempted 	to regulate 	fair employment
practices were invalid. See City Wide Rock, 201 Neb. at 408;
Midwest Emps. Council, 177 Neb. at 886; see also Op. Att'y
Gen. 	No. 	12-009 	(opining 	that 	municipalities 	cannot
expand 	protected 	classifications 	for purposes 	of the Fair
Employment 	Practices 	Act). 	The 	minimum 	wage 	falls
within the same field as "labor relations and practices" and
"fair employment 	practices." 	Like other 	laws regulating
fair employment 	practices, 	a minimum 	wage "is designed
to address 	a statewide 	concern for the health 	and welfare
of workers." Marquez u. City of Long Beach, 32 Cal.App.5th
552, 567 (2019); see also id. at 570-73. 12
12 Case law in other jurisdictions 	is split on the question
of whether municipal minimum 	wages are valid in the face of a
state 	minimum 	wage 	law. 	Compare, 	e.g., 	Marquez, 	32
Cal.App.5th at 570-78 (attempt to pay municipal employees less
13

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026)
The Court has also held that laws regulating 	traffic
signals, 	street 	congestion, 	eminent 	domain 	procedures,
gambling, 	and 	education 	are 	all 	matters 	of statewide
concern. 	Albarenga, 313 Neb. at 84; Van Patten v. City of
Omaha, 	167 Neb. 	741, 747-48 	(1959); Omaha 	Parking
Auth., 	163 Neb. at 98; State ex rel. Hunter v. The Araho,
137 Neb. 389, 400 (1940); Carlberg v. Metcalf, 	120 Neb.
481, 488 (1930). Each of those subjects 	is arguably 	more
locally concerned than the minimum wage.
At bottom, there can be little doubt that a minimum
wage is not a purely municipal 	concern. The effects of the
Local Wage Proposal would no doubt spill beyond Lincoln's
borders. 	Competitors 	in nearby labor markets 	will have to
compete for labor with elevated 	Lincoln wages. The prices
of goods and services originating 	in Lincoln but consumed
elsewhere 	in the State 	will rise as labor costs rise. And
businesses 	that 	operate 	in both Lincoln and other 	cities
will be forced to reconsider 	their 	compensation 	policies
across markets. 	The tendrils 	of Lincoln's minimum 	wage
than 	state 	mlillmum 	wage, relying 	on city charter's 	express
authorization 	to set wage rate 	for its workers, 	was unlawful
because minimum wage law was a matter of statewide 	concern),
and Ky. Restaurant, 	501 S.W.3d at 430 (higher local minimum
wage preempted); 	with Coop. Home Care, Inc. v. City of St. Louis,
514 	S.W.3d 	571, 	583-87 	(Mo. 2017) 	(wage 	ordinance 	not
preempted 	by 	state 	minimum 	wage 	law), 	and 	Visiting
Homemaker Serv. v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 883 A.2d 1074,
1080 	(N.J. Super. 	Ct. App. Div. 2005) (statutory 	amendment
specifically authorizing 	higher 	local minimum 	wage overcame
preemption 	argument). 	Critically, 	the outcome in these 	cases
was 	heavily 	dependent 	on 	the 	language 	of 	that 	state's
constitution 	and the relevant minimum wage statutes, 	as well as
the state's history with respect to municipal authority. 	Thus, we
find 	Nebraska 	caselaw 	far 	more 	salient 	to 	answering 	the
question posed.
14

Lawfulness 	of Local Minimum 	Wage Proposal
would radiate 	across the State. The minimum wage is thus
a matter 	of statewide 	concern.
V.
Given that the Local Wage Proposal is inconsistent
with state 	law under 	both field preemption 	and conflict
preemption, 	and 	because 	that 	the 	Proposal 	regulates 	a
matter 	of statewide 	concern, we conclude that 	the Local
Wage Proposal, 	if enacted, 	would be preempted 	by the
Wage Act and thus be invalid and unenforceable.
MICHAEL T. HILGERS
Attorney General of Nebraska
15

Attachment A (Local Wage Proposal)

1
2
3
4
5
6
26-41 	Introduce: 04-27-26
ORDINANCE NO. --------
AN ORDINANCE amending Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code relating to Public
Peace and Welfare by creating a new Chapter 9.80 entitled "Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance"
to adopt a minimum wage ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Lincoln, Nebraska:
Section 1. 	That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new
section numbered 9.80.010 to read as follows:
7 	9.80.010 	Purpose and Title.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
a. This Chapter shall be known as the "Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance."
b. The City of Lincoln declares the purpose of this ordinance is to establish a minimum wage for
all workers at levels consistent with their health, efficiency and general well-being. and to
safeguard existing minimum wage compensation standards which are adequate to maintain the
health, efficiency and general well-being of workers against the unfair competition of wage
standards that do not provide adequate standards of living.
Section 2. 	That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new
section numbered 9.80.020 to read as follows:
9.80.020 	Definitions.
For purposes of the Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires:
Employ shall include to permit to work.
Employer shall include any individual, partnership, limited liability company, association,
corporation, business trust. legal representative, or organized group of persons employing four or

1 	more employees at any one time except for seasonal employment of not more than twenty weeks
2 	in any calendar year, acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an
3 	employee, but shall not include the United States, the state, or any political subdivision thereof.
4 	Employee shall include any individual employed by any employer but does not include:
5 	1. Any individual employed in agriculture;
6 	2. Any individual employed as a baby-sitter in or about a private home;
7 	3. Any individual employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity or
8 	as a superintendent or supervisor;
9 	4. Any individual employed by the United States or by the state or any political subdivision
10 	thereof, including any individual incarcerated in any correctional facility;
11 	5. Any individual engaged in the activities of an educational, charitable. religious, or nonprofit
12 	organization when the employer-employee relationship does not in fact exist or when the
13 	services rendered to such organization are on a voluntary basis;
14 	6. Apprentices and learners otherwise provided by law;
15 	7. Veterans in training under supervision of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs;
16 	8. A child in the employment of his or her parent or a parent in the employment of his or her
17 	child; or
18 	9. Any person who, directly or indirectlv, is receiving any form of federal, state, county, or local
19 	aid or welfare and who is physically or mentally disabled and employed in a program of
20 	rehabilitation. who shall receive a wage at a level consistent with his or her health, efficiency,
21 	and general well-being.
22 	Wages shall mean all remuneration for personal services, including commissions and bonuses
23 	and the cash value of all remunerations in any medium other than cash.
2

Section 3. 	That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new
2 	section numbered 9.80.030 to read as follows:
3 	9.80.030 	Wage; Minimum Rate; Adjustments.
4 	a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer shall pay to each of his or her
5 	employees, without regard to the age of the employee, a minimum wage of fifteen dollars
6 	($15.00) per hour on the Effective Date through December 31, 2026.
7 	b. The minimum wage established in subsection (a) of this section shall be increased on January
8 	1, 2027, and on January 1 of successive years, by the increase in the cost of living. The increase
9 	in the cost of living shall be measured by the percentage increase, if any, as of August of the
10 	previous year over the level as of August of the year preceding that year in the consumer price
11 	index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) for the Midwest Region, or its successor index, as
12 	published by the U.S. Department of Labor, or its successor agency. with the amount of the
13 	minimum wage increase rounded up to the nearest multiple of five cents. No later than October
14 	15 of each year, commencing October 15, 2026, the Finance Director. or their designee, shall
15 	calculate and publish the minimum wage rate that will take effect the following January l.
16 	c. For persons compensated by way of gratuities such as waitresses, waiters, hotel bellhops,
17 	porters, and shoeshine persons, the employer shall pay wages at the minimum rate of two dollars
18 	and thirteen cents ($? .13) per hour, plus all gratuities given to them for services rendered. The
19 	sum of wages and gratuities received by each person compensated by way of gratuities shall
20 	equal or exceed the applicable minimum wage rate provided in subsection (a) or (b) of this
21 	section. In determining whether or not the individual is compensated by way of gratuities, the
22 	burden of proof shall be upon the employer.
3

1 	d. Any employer employing student-learners as part of a bona fide vocational training program
2 	shall pay such student-learners' wages at a rate of at least seventy-five percent of the minimum
3 	wage rate which would otherwise be applicable under this section.
4 	Section 4. 	That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new
5 	section numbered 9.80.040 to read as follows:
6 	9.80.040 	Posting.
7 	Every employer subject to the provisions of the Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance shall keep a
8 	summary of the Ordinance. furnished by the Finance Director, or their designee, without charge,
9 	posted in a conspicuous place on or about the premises wherein any person subject to the
10 	provisions of such Ordinance is employed.
11 	Section 5. 	That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new
12 	section numbered 9.80.050 to read as follows:
13 	9.80.050 	Penalty for Violations.
14 	a. Any employer subject to the provisions of the Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance who
15 	violates any provision of Section 9.80.030 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
16 	thereof shall be fined in any sum not to exceed $500.00. Each day that any violation continues
17 	shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
18 	b. Nothing herein shall preclude an individual from filing or pursuing a complaint with the
19 	Nebraska Commissioner of Labor or from pursuing any other remedy allowed by law.
20 	Section 6. 	That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new
21 	section numbered 9.80.060 to read as follows:
4

1 	9.80.060 	Collective Bargaining.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to interfere with, impede or in any way diminish the
right of employees to bargain collectively with their employees through representatives of their
own choosing in order to establish wages or other conditions of work in excess of the applicable
minimum under the provisions of the Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance and other law.
Section 7. 	That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new
section numbered 9.80.070 to read as follows:
9.80.070 	Severability.
In the event that any provision of this Ordinance shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any
court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining pmtions, clauses, and phrases shall not be
affected, but shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 8. 	That Sections 1 through 7 of this Ordinance shall be codified in the
Lincoln Municipal Code as Chapter 9.80 entitled Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance.
Section 9. 	That Chapter 9.80 shall go into force and effect on July 18, 2026.
Section 10. 	This ordinance shall be published, within fifteen days after the passage
16 	hereof, in one issue of a daily or weekly newspaper of general circulation in the City, or posted
17 	on the official bulletin board of the City, located on the wall across from the City Clerk's office
18 	at 555 S. 10th Street, in lieu and in place of the foregoing newspaper publication with notice of
19 	passage and such posting to be given by publication one time in the official newspaper by the
20 	City Clerk. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and
21 	publication or after its posting and notice of such posting given by publication as herein and in
22 	the City Charter provided.
5

26-41 	Introduce: 04-27-26
ORDINANCE NO. -------
Introduced by:
Approved as to Fonn & Legality:
City Attorney
Approved this __ 	day of ____ 	~ 2026:
Mayor
6