Document: 520 U.S. 806117 S.Ct. 1747138 L.Ed.2d 21 Barbara A. DE BUONO, New York Commissioner Of Health, et al., Petitioners,v.NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICES FUND, etc., al. No. 95-1594. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 24, 1997. Decided June 2, Syllabus * York's Health Facility Assessment (HFA) imposes a tax on gross receipts for patient services at, inter alia, diagnostic and treatment centers. The NYSA-ILA Medical Clinical Services Fund (the Fund), which administers plan subject to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), owns operates centers longshore workers, retirees their dependents. Respondents, Fund's trustees, discontinued paying filed this action enjoin petitioner state officials from making future assessments obtain refund, alleging that HFA is law "relates to'' within meaning §514(a) ERISA, therefore pre-empted as applied hospitals run by ERISA plans. District concluded not because it general application having only an incidental impact benefit Second Circuit reversed, reasoning relates reducing amount assets would otherwise be available provide members with benefits, could cause limit its benefits or charge higher fees. On remand in light State Conference Blue Cross & Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 645, 115 1671, 131 695-in held did pre-empt statute requiring collect surcharges patients covered commercial insurer but insured Cross/Blue plan-the reinstated judgment, distinguishing ground there at issue had indirect economic influence decisions administrators, whereas depletes directly, thus has immediate plan's operations. Held: Section 514(a) does preclude imposing funded medical Pp. ____-____. (a) When initially found pre-empted, relied substantially expansive literal interpretation words "relate §514(a). It appears have adhered approach remand, failing give proper weight Travelers' rejection such strictly reading. In Travelers, unequivocally language was intended modify "the starting presumption Congress intend supplant law.'' U.S., 654, S.Ct., 1676. evaluating whether normal against pre-emption been overcome particular case, must look objectives guide scope understood survive. Id., 656, 1677. (b) Following here, clearly field traditionally occupied States: regulation health safety matters. Hillsborough County Automated Laboratories, Inc., 471 707, 715, 105 2371, 2376, 85 714. Nothing HFA's operation convinces type supercede. one myriad laws applicability impose some burdens administration plans nevertheless do relate them statute's meaning. See, e.g., 668, 1683. supposed difference between direct impact-upon case Travelers-cannot withstand scrutiny. While arranged beneficiaries chosen purchase independently hospitals, those passed costs onto through rates. Although "indirect,'' all relevant respects identical "direct'' felt here. 74 F.3d 28, reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, dissenting opinion, THOMAS, M. Patricia Smith, petitioners. Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, DC, amicus curiae, special leave Court. Donato Caruso, City, Respondents. Justice STEVENS 1 This another (ERISA) case.1 Broadly stated, question presented operated are same other hospitals. More precisely, opaque ERISA's §514(a)2 precludes income funds. We hold may tax. 2 1990, faced choice either curtailing Medicaid program generating additional revenue reduce deficit, General Assembly enacted (HFA).3 residential care facilities, centers.4 become part State's revenues. 3 Respondents trustees self-insured, multiemployer welfare plan. three centers-two Jersey-that medical, dental primarily retirees, licensed "diagnostic centers,'' App. 80, 0.6 percent under HFA. N.Y. Pub. Law §2807-d(2)(c) (McKinney 1993). 4 During period January November 1991, respondents paid totaling $7,066 based two hospitals' $1,177,670. At time, they payments brought appropriate (petitioners) refund 1991. complaint alleged 5 denied relief. "tax application'' "interfere calculation determination employee's eligibility benefits'' Pet. Cert. 21a.5 6 Appeals distinguished cases we certain "laws were ERISA,6 explaining "targets industry,'' is, "by definition, realm where operate,'' Axelrod, D., 27 823, 827 (1994). court reasoned "operates contributions pay participants' benefits,'' directly affects very operations functions make what provider surgical, hospital participants beneficiaries.'' Ibid. HFA, court, "related reduced 7 first petition certiorari before handed down our 695 (1995). required 649-651, 1679-1682. After deciding vacated judgment remanded further consideration opinion. 1094, 1819, 742 8 original judgment. involved that-by insurance carriers who provided coverage beneficiaries-it "depletes plan,'' 30 (1996). granted officials' second certiorari, 519 ----, 117 292, 136 212 (1996), now reverse. II 9 Fund-operated ERISA. F.3d, 826. reconsidering approach, reading 10 earlier cases, noted text "clearly expansive.'' 655, But quite clear read "extend furthest stretch indeterminacy, [or] practical purposes preemption never course, "[r]eally, universally, relations stop nowhere,' H. James, Roderick Hudson xli (New ed., World's Classics 1980).'' Ibid.7 11 necessary rely character order find "connection reference to,'' Shaw Delta Air Lines, 463 85, 96-97, 103 2890, 2899-2900, 77 490 (1983), confronted 1676.8 not, acknowledged "that prior attempt[s] construe phrase to' d[o] us much help drawing line here.'' evaluate "must go beyond unhelpful frustrating difficulty defining key term, instead survive.'' endorsed once again Term concluding California's prevailing wage California Div. Labor Standards Enforcement Dillingham Constr., N. A., ---------, 832, 838-839, 791 (1997).9 12 begin noting historic police powers include matters safety. 714 (1985). raising measure, rather than ""has States.''' (quoting Jones Rath Packing 430 519, 525, 97 1305, 1309, 51 604 (1977)).10 bear considerable burden overcoming 13 There nothing supercede.11 forbidden method calculating pension federal permits,12 employers benefits.13 Nor existence critical element action,14 contains provisions expressly refer plans.15 14 A actual leads conclusion "myriad laws'' governing statute. See 1683; 841-842. Most owned fund running purchasing If made choice, purchased hospital, facility expense rates set provided. then decide cover more limited range beneficiaries, perhaps circumstance Thus, -cannot Any tax, law, increases cost providing employees will effect plans, simply cannot mean every statute.16 15 16 so ordered. 17 whom THOMAS joins, dissenting. 18 " [I]t duty see jurisdiction defined statute, exceeded.'' Louisville Nashville R. Co. Mottley, 211 149, 152, 29 42, 43, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908). Despite obligation examine federal-court even if raised party, ibid., despite Court's explicit acknowledgement, ante, __, n. 5, possibility over barred Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. §1341, proceeds merits respondents' challenge. offers grounds passing threshold jurisdiction: "settled practice according respect courts appeals' greater familiarity issues law,'' petitioner's "active participation nearly four years litigation no about jurisdiction.'' Ante, 5. my view, neither these factors justifies proceeding without resolving jurisdiction. 19 bars seeking (such here) "a plain, speedy efficient remedy Courts State.'' §1341; Arkansas Farm Credit Servs. Central Ark., post, __ (describing "jurisdictional rule'' "broad jurisdictional barrier''). suggested might bar since afford "plain'' Act. 92 Civ. 2779, 1993 WL 51146 (S.D.N.Y. 18, 1993), 19a. That suggestion however, upon resolution any "issues today's intimates, 5; rather, rested uncertainty implications statute- §502(e)(1) §1132(e)(1)-might render availability "plain.'' 19a.* Appeals, turn, mention issue, presumably because, controlling precedent, secure: previously ERISA-based challenges taxes "Congress divested jurisdiction'' claims. Cuomo, 708, (1993) (citing §502(e)(1), §1132(e)(1)), rev'd sub nom. holding (like discussion case) way turns I am loss understand invocation "our settled courts' basis overlooking syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 499. boundaries pre-emptive reach focus attention addressing Term. Boggs Boggs, --- 1754, ---- (1997); Constr. 791(1997). And took up question, decided fewer cases. (1995); John Hancock Mut. Life Harris Trust Sav. Bank, 510 86, 114 517, 524 (1993); Columbia Greater Washington Bd. Trade, 506 125, 113 580, 121 513 (1992); Ingersoll-Rand McClendon, 498 133, 111 478, 112 474 (1990); FMC Corp. Holliday, 52, 403, 356 Massachusetts Morash, 107, 109 1668, 104 98 (1989); Mackey Lanier Collection Agency Service, 486 825, 108 2182, 100 836 (1988); Fort Halifax Coyne, 482 1, 107 2211, 96 (1987); Metropolitan Taylor, 481 58, 1542, 95 55 Pilot Dedeaux, 41, 1549, 39 Massachusetts, 724, 2380, 728 (1985); (1983); Alessi Raybestos-Manhattan, 451 504, 101 1895, 68 402 (1981). also generated avalanche lower courts. Board 135, 3, 586 (STEVENS, dissenting) (observing 1992, LEXIS search uncovered 2,800 opinions pre-emption). informs [e]xcept subsection section, [statute] shall supersede insofar hereafter employee plan'' 88 Stat. 897, §1144(a). None exceptions case. §2807-d 1990). addition taxing derived investment operating income. §§2807-d(3)(c), 2807-d(3)(d) taxation activities challenged response petitioners objected jurisdiction, relying provides "shall enjoin, suspend restrain assessment, levy collection contended apply agreed respondents, 19a, when ultimately summary dismissed complaint, squarely id., 22a-23a. address anywhere papers court. held, actions this. 713-714 (1993), grounds, noted, re-examine, conclusion. 652-653, 4, 1675, 4. bar, satisfied secure reasons given Travelers. Before party current mentioned questioned Appeals' unavailable Given cf. Bishop Wood, 426 341, 346-347 10, 2074, 2078-2079 48 684 (1976), active presume correctly determined that, circumstances, barring Mackey, 838, 2190 (generally applicable garnishment pre-empted); 19, 2221 (state one-time severance payment pre-empted). 843 (SCALIA, concurring) (" [A]pplying provision terms project doomed failure, since, many curbstone philosopher observed, everything related else''). Where "federal said fields traditional . worked "assumption superseded Federal unless manifest purpose Congress.''' 1676 Rice Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 218, 230, 67 1146, 1152, 91 1447 (1947)). 837-838. alters incentives, dictate choices, facing regard, "no different areas local regulation, possibly eliminate.' area tenuous relation doing grave violence sort. conclude apprenticeship standards with,' to,' plans.'' 842. Indeed, small fact industry.'' (C.A.2 1994). Rather warranting pre-emption, point supports "starting presumption'' pre-emption. place great 1983 added specific save Hawaii's Prepaid Care doing, legislature generally preempt "any relating §1144(b)(5)(B)(i). Brief 17-23. significant §514(a), unconvinced stricter standard should laws. 524-525, 1907 ("Whatever Jersey "relate[s] plans' governed eliminates benefits-integration-that permitted law''). (1983) (ERISA pregnancy benefits); (1985) (law minimum mental plans). 139-140, 483 ("We dealing here makes to, indeed irrespective of, Here, factor establishing liability wrongful discharge law. As result, merely essence itself''). 828-830, 2184-2186 (a explicitly refers law's appl ication 130-131, 583-584 ("Section 2(c)(2) District's Equity Amendment specifically regulated alone pre-empted''). whose effects, intentionally otherwise, acute "as force adopt scheme substantive effectively restrict insurers'' "might §514,'' §1132(e)(1) demonstrated sole authorities cited support conclusion: 813 F.Supp. 996 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd. part, 708 National Carriers' Committee Heffernan, 440 1280, 1283 (D.Conn.1977). argument reached [b]ecause confers exclusive [under §1132(e)(1)], well feel compelled dismiss preempted. "plain.''' F.Supp., 1001 (internal quotation marks brackets omitted). Likewise, Heffernan (which arose Connecticut, York) pertinent law: "Jurisdiction suits arising minor exceptions, vested exclusively §1132(e)(1). suit preempted legislation supremacy clause. Consequently plaintiff "plain, efficient' '' (footnote dropped after failed her "active[ly] participat[ed] jurisdiction,'' confer possess. resolve preserved parties. Sumner Mata, 449 539, 548, 764, 770, 66 722 (1981); 43. here-a abandoned Appeals-and need issue. 547, 2. split among Circuits deprives taxes. Barnes E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Surgical Plan, 501 1301, 1302-1303, 1-2, 1087 (1991) chambers). left open, saying [w]e express [on] [can] sue declare invalid levy, Act''; answer depend "state provide[s] "speedy remedy''' §502 exception Act.'' Franchise Cal. Construction Laborers Vacation Southern Cal., 20, 21, 2841, 2852, 420 (1983). Because uncertain briefing argument, reaching claim. Accordingly, respectfully dissent

Category: 9