Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-404_i5ea.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–404.  Argued April 18, 2022—Decided June 21, 2022 

In 2018, Washington enacted a workers’ compensation law that applied 
only to certain workers at a federal facility in the State who were “en-
gaged in the performance of work, either directly or indirectly, for the 
United States.”  Wash. Rev. Code §51.32.187(1)(b).  The facility, known 
as the Hanford site, was once used by the Federal Government to de-
velop and produce nuclear weapons, and is now undergoing a complex 
decontamination process.  Most workers involved in this cleanup pro-
cess are federal contract workers—people employed by private compa-
nies under contract with the Federal Government.  A smaller number 
of  workers  involved  in  the  cleanup  include  State  employees,  private
employees,  and  federal  employees  who  work  directly  for  the  Federal 
Government.  As compared to Washington’s general workers’ compen-
sation scheme, the law makes it easier for federal contract workers at 
Hanford to establish their entitlement to workers’ compensation, thus 
increasing workers’ compensation costs for the Federal Government.

The  United  States  brought  suit  against  Washington,  arguing  that 
Washington’s  law  violates  the  Supremacy  Clause  by  discriminating
against the Federal Government.  The District Court concluded that 
the law was constitutional because it fell within the scope of a federal
waiver of immunity contained in 40 U. S. C. §3172.  The Ninth Circuit 
affirmed. 

Held: Washington’s law facially discriminates against the Federal Gov-
ernment and its contractors.  Because §3172 does not clearly and un-
ambiguously waive the Federal Government’s immunity from discrim-
inatory  state  laws,  Washington’s  law  is  unconstitutional  under  the 
Supremacy Clause.  Pp. 3–11.

(a) This case is not moot.  After the Court granted certiorari, Wash-
ington enacted a new statute which changed the scope of the original