United States v. Washington

40 U.S.C §3172’s federal waiver of immunity does not “clearly and unambiguously” authorize a state to enact a discriminatory law that facially singles out the Federal Government for unfavorable treatment.

Washington enacted a workers’ compensation law that applied only to workers at a federal facility in the state who were “engaged in the performance of work, either directly or indirectly, for the United States.” Wash. Rev. Code §51.32.187(1)(b). The United States brought suit, claiming Washington’s law violated the Supremacy Clause by discriminating against the Federal Government. The District Court determined the law was constitutional because it fell within the scope of the federal waiver of immunity set forth in 40 U.S.C. §3172, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this ruling. The Supreme Court found that Washington’s law imposed costs on the Federal Government that state and private entities do not bear and ruled that the §3172 waiver of immunity applies only where Congress has provided ‘“clear and unambiguous’ authorization for” this kind of state regulation. Goodyear Atomic Corp v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 180 (1988) (quoting EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 211 (1976)). Because the statute does not clearly and unambiguously waive the Government’s immunity from discriminatory state laws, the Court held Washington’s law unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.