United States v. Washington
The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Washington State law that created easier workers' compensation rules exclusively for federal contract workers at a nuclear cleanup site, ruling that it unconstitutionally singled out the Federal Government for costs that no state or private employer had to bear.
The decision reinforces the constitutional principle that states cannot impose special burdens on the Federal Government unless Congress has clearly and unambiguously authorized them to do so.
How it got here: A federal district court ruled Washington's law was constitutional; the Ninth Circuit affirmed; the United States asked the Supreme Court to step in and the Court agreed to hear it.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Washington State's Hanford nuclear site is a former weapons-production facility undergoing a massive, decades-long cleanup funded by the Federal Government, which contracts with private companies for most of the work. In 2018, Washington enacted a workers' compensation law that applied only to those federal contract workers, making it much easier for them to prove that diseases were caused by their Hanford work — through a strong, long-lasting legal presumption — thereby raising workers' compensation costs borne exclusively by the Federal Government.
The question before the Court
Can Washington State require the Federal Government to pay enhanced workers' compensation benefits for contract workers at a federal nuclear cleanup site, when no similar requirement applies to state or private employers?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that Washington's workers' compensation law unconstitutionally discriminated against the Federal Government. By applying only to workers doing federal work at the Hanford site, the law explicitly singled out the Federal Government for costs — through a generous disease-causation presumption — that no state or private employer faced. That kind of facial discrimination violates the Constitution's intergovernmental immunity doctrine, which bars states from imposing special burdens on the Federal Government.
Congress can override that immunity, but only with clear and unambiguous language. The federal statute Washington relied on (40 U.S.C. §3172) permits states to extend their ordinary, broadly applicable workers' compensation laws to federal lands — but it can just as plausibly be read as not authorizing discrimination against the Federal Government. Because the statute is reasonably open to a narrower reading, it does not clearly waive federal immunity, and Washington's discriminatory law cannot stand.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Federal agencies and their contractors at government-owned sites across the country are shielded from state laws that impose special financial burdens not shared by private or state employers. States wanting to enact favorable workplace rules for federal workers — potentially shifting large costs onto the federal treasury — will need explicit congressional approval to do so.
What changes now
The case is sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. The United States will pursue its argument that it can recoup or avoid paying $17–$37 million in workers' compensation claims awarded under the now-invalidated law. How Washington's 2022 replacement statute interacts with those pending claims — including whether it applies retroactively — remains for the lower courts and Washington's state courts to decide.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Washington's 2022 replacement law — which extended the workers' compensation presumption beyond federal workers to any worker at a radiological hazardous-waste facility — is itself constitutional, nor did it resolve whether the new law applies retroactively to claims filed under the old one.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first resolved a mootness challenge: after the Court agreed to hear the case, Washington passed a new 2022 law broadening the cleanup-worker presumption beyond federal workers. But a case is only moot if the Court cannot grant any effective relief. Because the United States stood to recoup or avoid between $17 million and $37 million in workers' compensation claims still winding through the courts, relief remained possible and the case was not moot.
- Turning to the merits, the Court applied the intergovernmental immunity doctrine — the constitutional rule, rooted in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), that states cannot single out the Federal Government for less favorable treatment than they give to state or private entities. A state law is discriminatory — and thus unconstitutional — when it explicitly targets the Federal Government or its contractors for burdens that similarly situated non-federal parties do not face.
- Washington's 2018 law was facially discriminatory: by its own terms it applied only to workers performing work 'directly or indirectly for the United States,' imposing a disease-causation presumption — and the resulting costs — on the Federal Government alone. No state or private employer at Hanford faced comparable obligations.
- Congress can authorize states to enact laws that would otherwise violate the Federal Government's intergovernmental immunity, but only through a clear and unambiguous waiver. The Court will not infer such a waiver from ambiguous language.
- The relevant federal statute, 40 U.S.C. §3172(a), allows states to apply their workers' compensation laws to federal lands 'in the same way and to the same extent as if the premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.' The Court found this language reasonably reads as permitting states to extend their generally applicable workers' compensation laws to federal land — not to enact laws that discriminate against the Federal Government. The statute's use of 'extension,' its focus on state enforcement authorities applying their ordinary laws, and the 'in the same way and to the same extent' phrase all point toward a narrower reading.
- Because the waiver in §3172 is ambiguous — it can plausibly be read either broadly or narrowly — it does not clearly and unambiguously authorize a law that facially singles out the Federal Government for worse treatment. An ambiguous waiver is not enough; Washington's law therefore falls outside §3172's scope and violates the Supremacy Clause.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller (486 U. S. 174)
That case addressed the types of workers' compensation awards covered by §3172, not laws that explicitly discriminate against the Federal Government.
Reaffirms McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheat. 316)
The foundational rule that states cannot single out the Federal Government for burdens not shared by others remains good law.