Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-540_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

4 

RUTLEDGE v. PHARMACEUTICAL CARE 
MANAGEMENT ASSN. 
THOMAS, J., concurring 

because  of  “how  much  state  law  §1144  would  pre-empt  if 
read literally.”  Gobeille, 577 U. S., at 328 (THOMAS, J., con-
curring).  Instead of reverting to the text, however, we de-
cided that “relate to” is so “indetermina[te]” that it cannot 
“give us much help drawing the line.”  Travelers, 514 U. S., 
at 655. 
  Having paid little attention to the actual statutory test, 
we  crafted  our  own,  asking  whether  the  challenged  state 
law  frustrates  the  “ ‘objectives’ ”  of  ERISA.    Gobeille,  577 
U. S., at 320.  Under this approach, the Court will declare 
as pre-empted “state laws based on perceived conflicts with 
broad federal policy objectives, legislative history, or gener-
alized  notions  of  congressional  purposes  that  are  not  em-
bodied within the text of federal law.”  Wyeth, 555 U. S., at 
583 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).  Our case law states that under 
an  objectives  and  purposes pre-emption  approach,  a  state 
law is pre-empted if it has a “reference to” or an “impermis-
sible connection with” ERISA plans.  Gobeille, 577 U. S., at 
319–320.  But this vague test offered “no more help than” 
the “ ‘relate to’ ” one.  Travelers, 514 U. S., at 656. 
  Our more recent efforts to further narrow the test have 
just yielded more confusion.  A state law references ERISA 
only  if  it  “ ‘acts  immediately  and  exclusively  upon  ERISA 
plans. . . or where the existence of ERISA plans is essential 
to the law’s operation.’ ”  Gobeille, 577 U. S., at 319–320 (el-
lipsis in original).  A connection with ERISA plans is imper-
missible only if it “ ‘governs. . . a central matter of plan ad-
ministration’ ” or “ ‘interferes with nationally uniform plan 
administration.’ ”    Id.,  at  320.  (ellipsis  in  original).1    Alt-

—————— 

1 We have also held that a state law might have an impermissible con-
nection with ERISA plans if the indirect economic effects of the state law 
“force an ERISA plan to adopt a certain scheme of substantive coverage 
or effectively restrict its choice of insurers.”  New York State Conference 
of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v.  Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645, 
668 (1995).