Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

2 

ONEOK, INC. v. LEARJET, INC. 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

Kan., 372 U. S. 84, 91–92 (1963) (defining the pre-empted 
field  in  light  of  the  “objective[s]”  of  the  Act).  Neither 
party, however, has asked us to overrule these longstand-
ing  precedents  or  “to  overcome  the  presumption  of  stare 
decisis that attaches to” them.  Kurns v. Railroad Friction 
Products  Corp.,  565  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2012)  (slip  op.,  at  7). 
And  even  under  these  precedents,  the  challenged  state
antitrust  laws  fall  outside  the  pre-empted  field.    Because 
the  Court  today  avoids  extending  its  earlier  questionable 
precedents, I concur in its judgment and join all but Part
I–A of its opinion.