The Supreme Court's Shift Against Federal Preemption in Recent Rulings

This analysis challenges the perception of the Roberts Court as uniformly pro-corporate, highlighting a emerging trend against broad federal preemption. While corporations typically favor preemption to avoid state liability, conservative justices like Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch often oppose it on federalist grounds. The article examines three recent cases: Hencely v. Fluor Corp, where the Court ruled federal law did not preempt state tort claims; Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, a unanimous decision rejecting preemption for transportation brokers; and the pending Monsanto Company v. Durnell case. In these instances, the Court prioritizes statutory text over corporate interests, with Justice Barrett emphasizing that legislative fixes belong to Congress, not the judiciary. Consequently, forming a five-justice majority for preemption has become difficult, creating an 'Antipreemption Court' dynamic. This shift suggests that even conservative justices are unwilling to engage in creative statutory interpretations to shield corporations from state suits, marking a significant jurisprudential development that complicates traditional ideological alignments within the Supreme Court.