Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-404_i5ea.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. WASHINGTON 

Opinion of the Court 

obtain  workers’  compensation,  thus  raising  workers’  com-
pensation costs for the Federal Government.  We conclude 
that the state law discriminates against the Federal Gov-
ernment  and  falls  outside  the  scope  of  Congress’  waiver. 
We  therefore  hold  that  the  law  is  unconstitutional  under 
the Supremacy Clause. 

I 

During World War II, the Federal Government acquired 
a large tract of land in Washington State known as the Han-
ford site.  The Government used the site to develop and pro-
duce  nuclear  weapons,  generating  a  massive  amount  of 
chemical  and  radioactive  waste.  After  the  Cold  War,  the 
Federal Government began the process of decommissioning 
and cleaning up the nuclear site.  The process has proved to 
be enormously complex.  It is expected to require decades of
time and billions of dollars.  Most of the workers involved 
in the cleanup process are federal contract workers—people 
employed  by  private  companies  under  contract  with  the
Federal  Government.  A  smaller  number  of  workers  in-
volved in the cleanup project include federal employees who 
work directly for the Federal Government, state employees
who work for the State of Washington, and private employ-
ees who work for private companies not under contract with
the Federal Government. 

In  2018,  Washington  enacted  a  workers’  compensation 
law that, by its terms, applied only to Hanford site workers 
“engaged in the performance of work, either directly or in-
directly,  for  the  United  States.”    Wash.  Rev.  Code 
§51.32.187(1)(b).  Despite the literal language of this stat-
ute, another provision of Washington law makes clear—and 
all parties here agree—that the statute applies only to fed-
eral  contract  workers  and  not  to  federal  employees.  See 
§51.12.060;  Brief  for  United  States  8,  n. 4;  Brief  for  Re-
spondents 13.  This is because Congress’ waiver of immun-
ity does not extend to those whom the Federal Government