Justice Scalia, With Whom Justice Ginsburg Joins, Concurring.

I join the opinion of the Court, since I believe that the "relate to" pre-emptive provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is assuredly triggered by a state law that contradicts ERISA. As the Court notes, "the statute at issue here directly conflicts with ERISA’s requirements that plans be administered, and bene-fits be paid, in accordance with plan documents." Ante, at 150. I remain unsure (as I think the lower courts and everyone else will be) as to what else triggers the "relate to" pro-vision, which—if it is interpreted to be anything other than a reference to our established jurisprudence concerning con-flict and field pre-emption—has no discernible content that would not pick up every ripple in the pond, producing a result "that no sensible person could have intended." California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N. A., Inc., 519 U. S. 316, 336 (1997) (Scalia, J., concurring). I persist in the view that we can bring some coherence to this area, and can give the statute both a plausible and precise content, only by interpreting the "relate to" clause as a reference to our ordinary pre-emption jurisprudence. See ibid.