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
According to Petitioner, the case concerns whether the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA) preempts Missouri’s law that forbids insurance subrogation.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld a state rule that forbids subrogation by insurance carriers.
According to Justice Ginsburg, the Court was asked whether FEHBA’s statutory language preempts that Missouri anti‑subrogation rule.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Petitioner, antisubrogation laws relate to benefits and coverage, as the Court previously held in FMC v. Holliday.
According to Petitioner, if the statutory language is ambiguous, the OPM notice‑and‑comment regulation resolves the issue in favor of preemption.
According to Petitioner, there is no constitutional infirmity in the Missouri rule.
According to Petitioner (Mr. Tripp), according to Petitioner (Mr. Tripp), even without Chevron deference, the petitioner would win because FEHBA contains an express‑preemption provision covering federal benefits for federal employees.
According to Petitioner (Mr. Tripp), according to Petitioner (Mr. Tripp), if Missouri can prohibit subrogation, federal workers in other states would bear the cost of benefit payments they cannot retain, which exceeds traditional state authority.
Respondent Position
According to Respondent (Mr. Wessler), according to Respondent (Mr. Wessler), congress intended the statute not to disturb otherwise applicable state insurance laws.
According to Mr. Wessler, a better approach is to point to a statute that expressly preempts state law.
According to Mr. Wessler, the terms of the contracts determine the scope of preemption, and those terms were not known by Congress when the law was enacted.
According to Mr. Wessler, eRISA includes substantive provisions that dictate which state laws are displaced by federal law.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether statute 8902(m)(1) preempts anything.
Justice Sotomayor asked the respondent to differentiate the Court’s holding in Hillman.
Justice Alito asked whether the petitioner’s argument depends on the wording of the statutory provision that supersedes state law.
Justice Alito further asked whether Congress knew the terms of the plans when it enacted the statute.
Justice Kagan asked for clarification on the respondent’s answer regarding the preemption language.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Petitioner, the case could clarify the extent to which FEHBA preempts state insurance regulations, affecting the administration of federal employee health benefits.
According to Petitioner (Mr. Tripp), a ruling on preemption could determine whether federal workers in one state must bear costs imposed by another state’s anti‑subrogation rule.
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.
- 50cad53e98a2adf13abd-r1-9c53cd22348e0d45.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.