Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-540_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–540 
_________________ 

LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
ARKANSAS, PETITIONER v. PHARMA- 
CEUTICAL CARE MANAGEMENT 
ASSOCIATION 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

[December 10, 2020] 

  JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. 
  I join the Court’s opinion in full because it properly ap-
plies our precedents interpreting the pre-emptive effect of 
the  Employee  Retirement  Income  Security  Act  of  1974 
(ERISA), 29 U. S. C. §1144. 
  I write separately because I continue to doubt our ERISA 
pre-emption  jurisprudence.    Gobeille  v.  Liberty  Mut.  Ins. 
Co.,  577  U. S.  312,  327  (2016)  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring).  
The  plain  text  of  ERISA  suggests  a  two-part  pre-emption 
test: (1) do any ERISA provisions govern the same matter 
as the state law at issue, and (2) does that state law have a 
meaningful relationship  to  ERISA  plans?    Only  if  the  an-
swers  to  both  are  in  the  affirmative  does  ERISA  displace 
state law.   But  our precedents  have  veered  from the  text, 
transforming  §1144  into  a  “vague  and  ‘potentially  bound-
less’. . .  ‘purposes  and  objectives’  pre-emption” clause  that 
relies  on  “generalized  notions  of  congressional  purposes.”  
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U. S. 555, 587 (2009) (THOMAS, J., con-
curring in judgment).  Although that approach may allow 
courts to arrive at the correct result in individual cases, it 
offers little guidance or predictability.  We should instead 
apply the law as written.