Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶62

In these situations, the Court found that constitutional structure dictated preemption, but today's majority largely disregards this body of precedent. The majority is certainly correct that “ `[t]here is no federal pre-emption in vacuo,' ” ante, at 38, and preemption cannot be based on “ `some brooding federal interest' ” or a “ `freewheeling judicial inquiry into whether a state statute is in tension with federal objectives.' ” Garcia, 589 U. S., at 202. We have been presented with and have rebuffed preemption arguments that rested on such airy grounds. See, e. g., Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. 387, 411–415 (2012): id., at 424–426 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id., at 437–438 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id., at 441 (Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). But any argument that constitutional structure cannot…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.