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
The Supreme Court held that Washington’s workers’ compensation law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against the Federal Government, violating the Supremacy Clause.
The decision could affect between $17 million and $37 million in workers’ compensation claims that the United States seeks to recoup or avoid paying.
Background and question before the Court
Washington enacted a law that allows the state to apply its workers’ compensation system to federal premises, raising the question whether the law violates the Supremacy Clause by discriminating against the Federal Government.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to United States, washington’s law discriminates against the Federal Government and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause.
Washington (Respondent)
According to Washington, the waiver language in the statute only permits the extension of generally applicable workers’ compensation laws to federal premises, not a discriminatory scheme.
According to Washington, other congressional waivers of intergovernmental immunity explicitly maintain the prohibition against discriminatory state laws.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked what the statute would have to look like to mean what Washington says it means.
Justice Barrett asked whether an otherwise existing generally applicable law can be applied to federal facilities under §3172.
Justice Thomas asked whether the case would be stronger if the Washington Supreme Court had decided it.
Justice Breyer asked about the authority for the claim under Washington law.
Justice Alito asked whether the statute allows a state to single out a federal facility by name.
Justice Barrett asked whether the state has exclusive jurisdiction except as Congress may allow.
According to Mr. Stewart, mr. Stewart noted that even when Congress clearly waives immunity, disputes about the scope of that waiver require a clear‑statement requirement.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan explained that §3172(c) does not affect federal employees, only federal contract workers.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer clarified that the complaint is not that Washington is treating workers too generously.
- [1] 8fbfdd1ebf166c1f94fd-r1-8a29967361ad1981.pdf, p. 26
- [2] 8fbfdd1ebf166c1f94fd-r1-8a29967361ad1981.pdf, p. 29
- [3] 8fbfdd1ebf166c1f94fd-r1-8a29967361ad1981.pdf, p. 32
- [4] 8fbfdd1ebf166c1f94fd-r1-8a29967361ad1981.pdf, p. 45
- [5] 8fbfdd1ebf166c1f94fd-r1-8a29967361ad1981.pdf, p. 46
- [6] 8fbfdd1ebf166c1f94fd-r1-8a29967361ad1981.pdf, p. 49
- [7] 8fbfdd1ebf166c1f94fd-r1-8a29967361ad1981.pdf, p. 23
- [8] 8fbfdd1ebf166c1f94fd-r1-8a29967361ad1981.pdf, p. 65
- [9] 8fbfdd1ebf166c1f94fd-r1-8a29967361ad1981.pdf, p. 65
What the Court decided
The Court held that Washington’s law is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.
The Court found Washington’s other arguments unconvincing.
The Court concluded that Washington’s law facially discriminates against the Federal Government and its contractors, and because §3172 does not clearly waive the Government’s immunity, the law is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.
Why it matters
The ruling reinforces the Supremacy Clause by preventing states from enacting laws that discriminate against the Federal Government.
The United States asserts that the decision could prevent it from paying up to $37 million in workers’ compensation claims.
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.
- 0b77f0b7411cd59acb18-r1-11e8d038e8804c51.pdfopinion
- 8fbfdd1ebf166c1f94fd-r1-8a29967361ad1981.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.