Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 21 (2001)
Cite as: 532 U. S. 141 (2001)
Appendix to opinion of Breyer, J.
Garrett, 531 U. S. 356 (2001), but rather in those many statutory cases where courts interpret the mass of technical detail that is the ordinary diet of the law, AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U. S. 366, 427 (1999) (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In this case, "field pre-emption" is not at issue. There is no "direct" conflict between state and federal statutes. The state statute poses no significant obstacle to the accomplishment of any federal objective. Any effort to squeeze some additional pre-emptive force from ERISA's words (i. e., "re-late to") is inconsistent with the Court's recent case law. And the state statute before us is one regarding family prop-erty—a "fiel[d] of traditional state regulation," where the interpretive presumption against pre-emption is particularly strong. Travelers, 514 U. S., at 655. For these reasons, I disagree with the Court's conclusion. And, consequently, I dissent.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF BREYER, J.
161
Page: Index Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Last modified: October 4, 2007