Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

1 

Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 12–71 
_________________ 

ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. THE INTER 

TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 17, 2013] 

JUSTICE KENNEDY, concurring in part and concurring in 

the judgment. 

The  opinion  for  the  Court  insists  on  stating  a  proposi-
tion  that,  in  my  respectful  view,  is  unnecessary  for  the
proper disposition of the case and is incorrect in any event.
The  Court  concludes  that  the  normal  “starting  presump-
tion that Congress does not intend to supplant state law,” 
New  York  State  Conference  of  Blue  Cross  &  Blue  Shield 
Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645, 654 (1995), does
not  apply  here  because  the  source  of  congressional  power 
is the Elections Clause and not some other provision of the
Constitution.  See ante, at 10–12. 

There  is  no  sound  basis  for  the  Court  to  rule,  for  the 
first  time,  that  there  exists  a  hierarchy  of  federal  powers
so  that  some  statutes  pre-empting  state  law  must  be  in- 
terpreted  by  different  rules  than  others,  all  depending 
upon which power Congress has exercised.  If the Court is 
skeptical  of  the  basic  idea  of  a  presumption  against  pre-
emption as a helpful instrument of construction in express 
pre-emption  cases,  see  Cipollone  v.  Liggett  Group,  Inc., 
505  U. S.  504,  545  (1992)  (SCALIA,  J.,  concurring  in  judg-
ment in part and dissenting in part), it should say so and 
apply that skepticism across the board.

There are numerous instances in which Congress, in the 
undoubted  exercise  of  its  enumerated  powers,  has  stated