An Empirical Study of Obstacle Preemption in the Supreme Court

TL;DR

This paper empirically analyzes the Supreme Court's obstacle preemption decisions over fifteen years, revealing unique voting patterns and a surprising coalition forming against obstacle preemption.

Contribution

It provides new insights into the Court's voting dynamics and coalition formations in obstacle preemption cases, highlighting shifts in ideological alignments.

Findings

Justice Thomas aligns with liberals forming a coalition against obstacle preemption

The Court's preemption decisions show unpredictable and unique voting patterns

A surprising anti-obstacle preemption coalition is emerging among justices

Abstract

The Supreme Court's federal preemption decisions are notoriously unpredictable. Traditional left-right voting alignments break down in the face of competing ideological pulls. The breakdown of predictable voting blocs leaves the business interests most affected by federal preemption uncertain of the scope of potential liability to injured third parties and unsure even of whether state or federal law will be applied to future claims. This empirical analysis of the Court's decisions over the last fifteen years sheds light on the Court's unique voting alignments in obstacle preemption cases. A surprising anti-obstacle preemption coalition is forming as Justice Thomas gradually positions himself alongside the Court's liberals to form a five-justice voting bloc opposing obstacle preemption.