Page:Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters.pdf/19

4 of labor relations. Garmon, 359 U. S., at 240 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The parties here have not asked us to reconsider Garmon, nor is it necessary to do so to resolve this case. Nonetheless, in an appropriate case, we should carefully reexamine whether the law supports Garmon’s “unusual” pre-emption regime. In doing so, I would bear in mind that any proper pre-emption inquiry must focus on the NLRA’s text and ask whether federal law and state law “are in logical contradiction,” such that it is impossible to comply with both. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (, concurring) (slip op., at 2); see also PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U. S. 604, 617–618 (2011).