Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner appealed the federal appeals court reversal of Petitioner’s state tort claims and allowed Respondent’s federal military contractor defense.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A defense in federal law can preempt a state law when there is a unique federal interest and the state law is in direct conflict with the federal law.
Issue. The issue is whether Respondent can use a federal defense that protects military contractors against state tort law claims.
Held. The majority of the United States Supreme Court held that there were unique federal interests that require the preemption of state law when a significant conflict exists between federal and state law, even when there is no express legislative authority to do so. The federal government’s contracting for military equipment would be considered a unique federal interest. Therefore the case should be remanded to determine whether the helicopter conformed to the federal government’s specifications and the supplier warned the government about dangers known to the contractor and not the government.
We adopt this provision lest our effort to protect discretionary functions perversely impede them by cutting off information highly relevant to the discretionary decision.View Full Point of Law
Supreme Court Justice John Stevens argued that the decision to immunize contractors should be left to Congress.
Discussion. The majority did not want states to have the power to reach parties that were working with the federal government on issues that are solely in the domain of the U.S. government. The contractors are acting as an extension of the federal government.