In practice, no.
Just look at marijuana and abortion laws for two different prime examples of how supposed federal law superseding "lower" law can play out in ways that circumvent the nature of that power structure.
The reality is law is reactionary. Just because a law exists doesn't mean there is actually anything tangible preventing you from performing an action, and if the courts are acting in ways counter to federal law AND/OR federal law isn't asserting/executing authority that it has to supercede local law, then it's implicitly allowing it to continue and perhaps even setting precedent or groundwork to dismantle that particular paradigm.
Remember, this is America. States Rights advocates aren't just numerous, but hold significant power in state and federal legislature and courts. While the Federal law should reign supreme, the reality on the ground is that even when it does, it's often playing catch up, so there's still a gulf between how things work in theory, and in reality, if for nothing else just due to the slow operation of federal government and law.
Neither of these are good examples.
Marijuana is because the Feds choose not to act; the DEA could raid every dispensary tomorrow if they wanted.
Abortion never got meaningfully protected at the Federal level. The Dems had sort of a chance at it, but chose the ACA to spend that political capital on instead.