Beard v. Beard

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that because the federal government covered the costs to federal contractors, the state law “increase[d] workers’ compensation costs for the Federal Government”
• describing intergovernmental immunity as \prohibiting States from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government\
• reading McCulloch as a “prohibit[ion] [on] States from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government”
• explaining “a state law is . . . no longer unconstitutional just because it indirectly increases costs for the Federal Government, so long as the law imposes those costs in a neutral, nondiscriminatory way”
• “The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause generally immunizes the Federal Government from state laws that directly regulate or discriminate against it”
• The Constitution prohibits state laws that “discriminate against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals (e.g., contractors)” (simplified)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).