Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-149_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

gress  plainly  intended  for  §8902(m)(1)  to  apply  to  the 
benefit  repayment  terms  in  [Coventry’s]  contract,”  id.,  at 
462.  He  nevertheless  concurred,  reasoning  that  the  Su-
premacy  Clause  did  not  authorize  preemption  based  on 
the terms of FEHBA contracts.  Id., at 462–465. 

Coventry sought our review, and we invited the Solicitor
General  to  file  a  brief  expressing  the  views  of  the  United
States.  Coventry  Health  Care  of  Mo.,  Inc.  v.  Nevils,  574 
U. S.  ___  (2014).    While  Coventry’s  petition  was  pending,
OPM  finalized  its  rule  governing  subrogation  and  reim-
bursement.  See supra, at 3.  This Court granted certiorari, 
vacated  the  Missouri  Supreme  Court’s  judgment,  and 
remanded  for  further  consideration  in  light  of  OPM’s 
recently adopted rule.  Coventry Health Care of Mo., Inc. v. 
Nevils, 576 U. S. ___ (2015). 

On remand, the Missouri Supreme Court adhered to its
earlier  decision.  Nevils  v.  Group  Health  Plan,  Inc.,  492 
S. W. 3d 918, 920, 925 (2016).  OPM’s rule, the court main-
tained,  “does  not  overcome  the  presumption  against 
preemption and demonstrate Congress’ clear and manifest
intent to preempt state law.”  Id., at 920. 

Judge  Wilson  again  concurred,  this  time  joined  by  a 
majority of the judges of the Missouri Supreme Court.  Id., 
at 925.2  In their view, Congress’ “attempt to give preemp-
tive  effect  to  the  provisions  of  a  contract  between  the
federal  government  and  a  private  party  is  not  a  valid 
application of the Supremacy Clause” and, “therefore, does
not displace Missouri law here.”  Ibid. 

We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  conflicting  interpreta-
tions  of  §8902(m)(1).    580  U. S.  ___  (2016).    Compare  492
S. W. 2d, at 925 (majority opinion), with Bell v. Blue Cross 
&  Blue  Shield  of  Okla.,  823  F. 3d  1198,  1199  (CA8  2016) 

—————— 

2 Under Missouri law, a “concurring opinion” in which “a  majority of
the  court  concur[s]”  is  binding  precedent.    Mueller  v.  Burchfield,  359 
Mo. 876, 880, 224 S. W. 2d 87, 89 (1949).