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

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

hough, at first blush, that may seem more precise than ask-
ing if a law “relates to” ERISA, it has proven just as difficult 
to apply consistently, leading many members of the Court 
to  suggest  still  other  methods.    See,  e.g.,  Egelhoff  v. 
Egelhoff, 532 U. S. 141, 152 (2001) (Scalia, J., concurring); 
Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U. S. 200, 222–224 (2004) 
(Ginsburg,  J.,  concurring).    Instead of relying  on  this  “ac-
cordion-like” test that seems to expand or contract depend-
ing on the year,  Reece, The Accordion Type Jurisprudence 
of ERISA Preemption Creates Unnecessary Uncertainty, 88 
UMKC  L. Rev.  115,  124,  n.  71  (2019),  perhaps  we  should 
just interpret the text as written. 

III 
  Stare decisis concerns need not caution against a return 
to the text because the outcomes of our recent cases—if not 
the reasoning— are generally consistent with a text-based 
approach.    Indeed,  since  Travelers  every  state  law  this 
Court has held pre-empted involved a matter explicitly ad-
dressed by ERISA provisions.  See, e.g., Boggs v. Boggs, 520 
U. S. 833, 843–854 (1997) (pre-empting state law and dis-
cussing  ERISA  provisions  with  which  it  conflicts);  Aetna 
Health, 542 U. S., at 204 (holding that states cannot create 
new causes of action that conflict with ERISA’s “ ‘interlock-
ing,  interrelated,  and  interdependent  remedial  scheme,’ ” 
located in §502(a) of ERISA).2 

—————— 

2 The Court has found something to be “a central matter of plan admin-
istration”  only  when  the  matter  is  addressed  by  ERISA’s  text.    E.g., 
Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U. S. 141, 148 (2001); Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. 
Ins. Co., 577 U. S., at 321–322.  And if the state law interferes with na-
tional uniformity but ERISA does not address the matter, we have held 
that the matter in question does not require uniformity.  Travelers, 514 
U. S., at 662; ante, at 5, (“not every state law that. . . causes some disuni-
formity in plan administration” is pre-empted).  We have also held that 
ERISA does not pre-empt state laws regulating ERISA plans engaging 
in  activity  not  regulated  by  ERISA,  like  running  a  hospital.    See  De 
Buono v. NYSA–ILA Medical and Clinical Services Fund, 520 U. S. 806