Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

ONEOK, INC. v. LEARJET, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

Thing  in  the  Constitution  or  Laws  of  any  state  to  the
Contrary  notwithstanding.”    Art. VI,  cl. 2.    Congress  may
consequently pre-empt, i.e., invalidate, a state law through
federal legislation.  It may do so through express language 
in a statute.  But even where, as here, a statute does not 
refer  expressly  to  pre-emption,  Congress  may  implicitly 
pre-empt  a  state  law,  rule,  or  other  state  action.    See 
Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U. S. 51, 64 (2002). 

It may do so either through “field” pre-emption or “con­
flict”  pre-emption.    As  to  the  former,  Congress  may  have
intended  “to  foreclose  any  state  regulation  in  the  area,” 
irrespective  of  whether  state  law  is  consistent  or  incon­
sistent with “federal standards.”  Arizona v. United States, 
567 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 10) (emphasis added). 
In  such  situations,  Congress  has  forbidden  the  State  to
take action in the field that the federal statute pre-empts.
By  contrast,  conflict  pre-emption  exists  where  “compli­
ance  with  both  state  and  federal  law  is  impossible,”  or 
where  “the  state  law  ‘stands  as  an  obstacle  to  the  accom­
plishment  and  execution  of  the  full  purposes  and  objec­
tives of Congress.’ ”  California v. ARC America Corp., 490 
U. S. 93, 100, 101 (1989).  In either situation, federal law 
must prevail. 

No  one  here  claims  that  any  relevant  federal  statute
expressly  pre-empts  state  antitrust  lawsuits.    Nor  have 
the  parties  argued  at  any  length  that  these  state  suits
conflict  with  federal  law.    Rather,  the  interstate  pipeline 
companies  (petitioners  here)  argue  that  Congress  implic- 
itly “‘occupied the field of matters relating to wholesale sales 
and  transportation  of  natural  gas  in  interstate  com­
merce.’ ”    Brief  for  Petitioners  18  (quoting  Schneidewind, 
supra,  at  305  (emphasis  added)).    And  they  contend  that 
the  state  antitrust  claims  advanced  by  their  direct-sales 
customers  (respondents  here)  fall  within  that  field.    The 
United  States,  supporting  the  pipelines,  argues  similarly. 
See  Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus  Curiae  15.  Since