United States v. Washington
596 U.S. 832, 213 L. Ed. 2d 336 (2022)
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, a state law that facially discriminates against the Federal Government or its contractors is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause unless Congress provides a clear and unambiguous waiver authorizing such discrimination.
Facts:
- The United States Government owns the Hanford site in Washington, a former nuclear weapons production facility currently undergoing a complex and hazardous cleanup process.
- The majority of the workforce conducting this cleanup consists of employees of private companies under contract with the Federal Government.
- In 2018, the State of Washington enacted a workers' compensation statute that applied specifically and exclusively to workers performing services for the United States at the Hanford site.
- This statute created a rebuttable presumption that certain illnesses developed by these specific workers were occupational diseases, a benefit not extended to other state or private employees.
- The presumption established by the law could only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence and remained in effect for the duration of the worker's life.
- Because the United States reimburses its contractors for workers' compensation costs, the state law significantly increased financial liabilities for the Federal Government compared to other employers in the state.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a lawsuit against Washington in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington challenging the constitutionality of the state law.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Washington, concluding the law was covered by a federal waiver.
- The United States appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling.
- The United States petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state workers' compensation statute that applies exclusively to federal contract workers at a specific federal facility, thereby imposing increased costs on the United States, violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine of the Supremacy Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes, the state law violates the Supremacy Clause because it discriminates against the Federal Government without clear congressional authorization. The Court reasoned that the intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits states from regulating the United States directly or discriminating against it or its contractors. A state law is discriminatory if it singles out the federal government for less favorable treatment. Here, Washington's law explicitly targeted federal workers for a benefit scheme that increased costs for the United States, which constitutes facial discrimination. While Congress can waive this immunity, such a waiver must be 'clear and unambiguous.' The relevant federal statute, 40 U.S.C. §3172, authorizes states to apply workers' compensation laws to federal land 'in the same way and to the same extent' as if the land were under state jurisdiction. The Court interpreted this as a waiver only for generally applicable laws, not for laws that discriminate against the federal government. Consequently, because Congress did not explicitly authorize discriminatory treatment, Washington's law is unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the robust nature of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, particularly regarding the 'clear statement' rule required for waivers. It clarifies that federal statutes permitting the application of state law on federal property should generally be read as authorizing only non-discriminatory, generally applicable laws, unless the text explicitly says otherwise. This prevents states from using their regulatory powers to target federal operations for unique financial burdens or regulations. The ruling likely invalidates similar state attempts to single out federal contractors for specific regulatory schemes that differ from those applied to the private sector.
