Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶65

We have applied this principle in numerous preemption cases. In Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U. S. 363 (2000), we held that a federal statute imposing sanctions on Burma preempted a state law banning the purchase of goods produced by companies that did business with that nation. Id., at 373–374. We reached that conclusion even though it would have been possible to comply with both the federal and state laws. Id., at 379–380. Similarly, in American Ins. Assn. v. Garamendi, 539 U. S. 396 (2003), we held that a federal executive agreement preempted a state statute that attempted to facilitate reparations for Holocaust survivors. Id., at 419, and n. 11, 427.

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