Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-149_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

particular  linguistic  formulation  when  preempting  state 
law, Nevils’ Supremacy Clause challenge fails.5 

* 

* 
For  the  reasons  stated,  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme
Court  of  Missouri  is  reversed,  and  the  case  is  remanded 
for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 

* 

It is so ordered.
 JUSTICE  GORSUCH  took  no  part  in  the  consideration  or 

decision of this case. 

—————— 

§8989 (same for vision); §9005(a) (same for long-term care); 10 U. S. C. 
§1103(a)  (certain  state  laws  “shall  not  apply  to  any  contract  entered 
into pursuant to this chapter”). 

5 Nevils’ speculation about the Government’s outsourcing preemption
to  private  entities,  see  Brief  for  Respondent  24,  is  far  afield  from  the
matter before us.  This case involves only Congress’ preemption of state
insurance  laws  to  ensure  that  the  terms  in  contracts  negotiated  by
OPM, a federal agency, operate free from state interference.