Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 20

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

1 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 13–271 
_________________ 

ONEOK, INC., ET AL. PETITIONERS v.

 LEARJET, INC., ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

[April 21, 2015] 

JUSTICE  THOMAS,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in 

the judgment. 

I  agree  with  much  of  the  majority’s  application  of  our
precedents  governing  pre-emption  under  the  Natural  Gas
Act.  I write separately to reiterate my view that “implied 
pre-emption  doctrines  that  wander  far  from  the  statutory
text  are  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution.”    Wyeth  v. 
Levine, 555 U. S. 555, 583 (2009) (THOMAS, J., concurring 
in judgment).  The Supremacy Clause of our Constitution 
“gives  ‘supreme’  status  only  to  those  [federal  laws]  that
are ‘made in Pursuance’ ” of it.  Id., at 585 (quoting Art. VI, 
cl. 2).  And to be “made in Pursuance” of the Constitution, 
a  law  must  fall  within  one  of  Congress’  enumerated  pow-
ers and be promulgated in accordance with the lawmaking 
procedures  set  forth  in  that  document.    Id.,  at  585–586. 
“The  Supremacy  Clause  thus  requires  that  pre-emptive
effect be given only to those federal standards and policies 
that are set forth in, or necessarily follow from, the statu-
tory  text  that  was  produced  through  the  constitutionally 
required  bicameral  and  presentment  procedures.”  Id.,  at 
586. 

In light of this constitutional requirement, I have doubts
about  the  legitimacy  of  this  Court’s  precedents  concern-
ing the pre-emptive scope of the Natural Gas Act, see, e.g., 
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm’n of