Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-404_i5ea.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Syllabus 

language broadly to effectuate a complete waiver of intergovernmental 
immunity as to all workers’ compensation laws on federal lands and
projects,  including  workers’  compensation  laws  that  discriminate 
against  the  Federal  Government.    But  one  can  reasonably  read  the 
statute as containing a narrower waiver of immunity, namely, as only 
authorizing  a  State  to  extend  its  generally  applicable  state  workers’ 
compensation laws to federal lands and projects within the State.  Sec-
tion 3172’s waiver thus does not “clear[ly] and unambiguous[ly]” au-
thorize a State to enact a discriminatory law that facially singles out
the Federal Government for unfavorable treatment.  Goodyear Atomic 
Corp. v. Miller, 486 U. S. 174, 180.  Pp. 6–9.

(d) Washington’s  arguments  to  the  contrary  are  unconvincing. 
Washington emphasizes that the waiver statute allows a State to ap-
ply its workers’ compensation laws to federal premises “as if the prem-
ises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.”  §3172(a).  But 
those words follow the phrase “in the same way and to the same ex-
tent” and, read together, the language could plausibly be interpreted 
to allow only the extension of generally applicable workers’ compensa-
tion laws to federal premises.  The statute thus does not clearly and
unambiguously permit the discrimination contained in Washington’s 
“federal workers only” law.  Washington next points to other congres-
sional waivers of intergovernmental immunity that explicitly maintain
the  constitutional  prohibition  on  discriminatory  state  laws.    But  the 
fact  that  Congress  more  explicitly  preserved  the  immunity  in  other 
contexts  does  not  mean  that  Congress  clearly  waived  it  in  §3172(a). 
Finally, Washington relies on Goodyear Atomic, but that decision said 
nothing  about  laws—such  as  the  one  here—that  explicitly  discrimi-
nate against the Federal Government.  If anything, statements from 
Goodyear Atomic tend to support, not undermine, the Court’s decision 
today.  Pp. 9–11. 

994 F. 3d 994, reversed and remanded. 

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.