Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 19

4 

GLACIER NORTHWEST, INC. v. TEAMSTERS 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

of labor relations.  Garmon, 359 U. S., at 240 (internal quo-
tation marks omitted).

The parties here have not asked us to reconsider Garmon, 
nor is it necessary to do so to resolve this case.  Nonetheless, 
in  an  appropriate  case,  we  should  carefully  reexamine
whether the law supports Garmon’s “unusual” pre-emption 
regime.  Ante, at 2.  In doing so, I would bear in mind that
any proper pre-emption inquiry must focus on the NLRA’s
text and ask whether federal law and state law “are in log-
ical contradiction,” such that it is impossible to comply with
both.  Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 587 U. S. 
___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2); see
also PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U. S. 604, 617–618 (2011).