United States v. State of Washington
971 F.3d 856
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background:
- Hanford is a large, federally owned, decommissioned nuclear site with extensive hazardous-waste cleanup overseen by DOE and carried out largely by private contractors; thousands of contractor employees work there.
- Washington long applied its workers’ compensation regime (WIIA) to employees working on federal land via state law and under the federal statutory waiver (now 40 U.S.C. § 3172). DOE typically insures contractor claims through MOUs or contracts.
- In 2018 Washington enacted HB 1723, which applies only to "Hanford site workers" (DOE contractors/subcontractors) and creates a rebuttable presumption (clear and convincing standard) that certain diseases/cancers are occupational, extends the presumption for life, allows refiling of denied claims, and permits recovery of costs/fees on successful appeal.
- The United States sued Washington, alleging HB 1723 impermissibly discriminates against and directly regulates the federal government in violation of the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity (Supremacy Clause).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Washington; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding § 3172’s waiver authorizes application of HB 1723 to federal land/contractors and thus HB 1723 does not violate intergovernmental immunity.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 40 U.S.C. § 3172 permits a state workers’ compensation law that selectively applies to workers performing work for the United States at a particular federal site | §3172 authorizes only extension of generally applicable WCI laws, not laws singling out federal contractors or sites | §3172 waives immunity broadly: states may apply their workers’ compensation laws to federal premises “in the same way and to the same extent” as if under state exclusive jurisdiction | §3172’s plain text and precedent permit the waiver to encompass HB 1723; waiver is not limited to generally applicable laws; affirmed for Washington |
| Whether HB 1723 unlawfully discriminates/is impermissibly more stringent compared to non‑federal regimes (analogous to CERCLA limits) | HB 1723 discriminates against the federal government and its contractors and effectively imposes more stringent rules on federal-related work | §3172 contains no nondiscrimination/"no more stringent" exception (unlike CERCLA); Congress authorized the state interest and distinction; prior precedent allows such distinctions | Court rejected the discrimination argument, distinguishing CERCLA and relying on §3172’s text and prior cases (Lewis County); HB 1723 permissible under §3172 |
Key Cases Cited
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) (establishes that states may not impede federal operations; origin of intergovernmental immunity)
- Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174 (1988) (interpreted predecessor statute to permit application of state workers’ compensation provisions at federal facilities)
- Boeing Co. v. Movassaghi, 768 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2014) (applied Supremacy Clause to invalidate state law that imposed more stringent cleanup rules on federal site)
- United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019) (discusses Supremacy Clause and intergovernmental immunity principles)
- United States v. Lewis County, 175 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 1999) (interpreted similar federal-waiver language to permit distinctions favoring state taxation authorized by Congress)
- Begay v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 682 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982) (interpreted predecessor to § 3172 as permitting application of state workers’ compensation to all U.S. territory within a state)