This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
The matter was heard on oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 11:05 a.m.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts questioned whether Congress could have simply provided federal jurisdiction for these rights.
Justice Stevens asked whether there is any constitutional difficulty with the preemption provision in the statute.
Justice Souter asked whether the cause of action involves federal law sufficient to establish federal‑question jurisdiction.
Justice Souter also asked whether OPM must approve the contract language.
- [1] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 19
- [3] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 20
- [4] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 25
- [5] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 57
- [6] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 54
What each side argues
Empire Healthchoice Assurance (Petitioner)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Denise F. McVeigh Estate (Respondent)
According to Mr. Srinivasan (respondent), according to Mr. Srinivasan (respondent), the contract terms are matters of Federal law, preempting State law, because the preemption provision makes them federally governed.
According to Mr. Stock, uniformity of employee treatment is a governmental interest that the contract seeks to preserve.
According to Mr. Shelley, OPM does not approve the contract language; the benefits statement is part of the master contract, not an individual contract.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts questioned whether Congress could have simply provided federal jurisdiction for these rights.
Justice Stevens asked whether there is any constitutional difficulty with the preemption provision in the statute.
Justice Souter asked whether the cause of action involves federal law sufficient to establish federal‑question jurisdiction.
Justice Souter also asked whether OPM must approve the contract language.
Mr. Stock argued that the case concerns reimbursement for duplicate payments to the same doctor on the same day.
Mr. Stock highlighted differences in state collateral source rules that affect the estate’s claim for medical bills.
According to Mr. Shelley, mr. Shelley explained that the benefits statement is part of the master contract, not an individual contract, and is attached as Appendix A.
- [1] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 19
- [2] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 20
- [3] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 25
- [4] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 57
- [5] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 54
- [6] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 44
- [7] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 37
- [8] 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdf, p. 57
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 28c8cc949647d1e01fc6-r1-312ee7fdb15b1ab1.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.