Statute can abrogate the common law. See Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1980] 1 FC 518:
Once a statute has been validly enacted, it must be given effect. If its necessary effect is to abridge or entirely abrogate a common law right, then that is the effect that the courts must give it.
In the U.S., courts avoid reading a statute as abrogating the common law unless it is very clearly evident. See Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 343 U.S. 779 (1952)
Statutes which invade the common law or the general maritime law are to be read with a presumption favoring the retention of long established and familiar principles, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.
Although, some states direct courts to interpret their statutes liberally, even where they derogate from the common law. See Ohio, for example:
Remedial laws and all proceedings under them shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and assist the parties in obtaining justice. The rule of the common law that statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed has no application to remedial laws; but this section does not require a liberal construction of laws affecting personal liberty, relating to amercement, or of a penal nature.
Statute can also codify the common law. For example, the Copyright Act of 1976 codified the common law of fair use.
See also, Jefferson B. Fordham & Russell J. Leach, "Interpretation of Statutes in Derogation of the Common Law" (1950) 3 Vanderbilt Law Review 438; and Roscoe Pound, "Common Law and Legislation" (1908) 21:6 Harvard Law Review 383.
As for your specific example, I know you were trying to construct an example without constitutional implications, but at first glance, it may raise an issue under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But, barring constitutional problems, there is nothing preventing Congress from legislating contrary to the common law.
