Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-149_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  581 U. S. ____ (2017) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

because  subrogation  and  reimbursement  rights  yield  just 
such  payments.  When  a  carrier  exercises  its  right  to
either  reimbursement  or  subrogation,  it  receives  from 
either  the  beneficiary  or  a  third  party  “payment”  respect-
ing  the  benefits  the  carrier  had  previously  paid.    The 
carrier’s  very  provision  of  benefits  triggers  the  right  to 
payment.  See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  31;  Helfrich,  804  F. 3d,  at 
1106; Bell, 823 F. 3d, at 1204. 

Congress’ use of the expansive phrase “relate to” shores
up  that  understanding.    We  have  “repeatedly  recognized” 
that  the  phrase  “relate  to”  in  a  preemption  clause  “ex-
press[es] a broad pre-emptive purpose.”  Morales v. Trans 
World  Airlines,  Inc.,  504  U. S.  374,  383  (1992);  accord 
Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U. S. ___, ___, ___ (2014) 
(slip op., at 5, 9).  Congress characteristically employs the 
phrase to reach any subject that has “a connection with, or
reference to,” the topics the statute enumerates.  Morales, 
504  U. S.,  at  384.    The  phrase  therefore  weighs  against
Nevils’  effort  to  narrow  the  term  “payments”  to  exclude 
payments  that  occur  “long  after”  a  carrier’s  provision  of 
benefits  (Brief  for  Respondent  27  (quoting  McVeigh,  547 
U. S., at 697)).  See Nevils I, 418 S. W. 3d, at 460 (Wilson, 
J.,  concurring);  cf.  Hillman  v.  Maretta,  569  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2013)  (slip  op.,  at  10)  (in  the  Federal  Employees’  Group 
Life  Insurance  Act  context,  it  “makes  no  difference” 
whether state law withholds benefits in the first instance 
or  instead  takes  them  away  after  they  have  been  paid). 
Given  language  notably  “expansive  [in]  sweep,”  Morales, 
504  U. S.,  at  384  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted), 
Nevils’ argument that Congress intended to preempt only
state  coverage  requirements  (e.g.,  for  acupuncture  and 
chiropractic  services,  see  Brief  for  Respondent  36)  also 
miscarries. 

The statutory context and purpose reinforce our conclu-
sion.  FEHBA  concerns  “benefits  from  a  federal  health 
insurance  plan  for  federal  employees  that  arise  from  a