The US Supreme Court case California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, et al. v. Dillingham Construction, N.A., Inc., and Manuel J. Arceo, DBA Sound Systems Media (1996) revolved around the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The central issue was whether ERISA preempted a California law that allowed contractors to pay less than prevailing wages on public works projects if they contributed to an approved apprenticeship program for their workers' training costs. Dillingham Construction and Sound Systems Media argued that this state law interfered with the uniform administration of their ERISA-regulated benefit plans by effectively requiring them to contribute more money towards these programs or face higher wage bills. However, the court ruled in favor of the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement stating that while ERISA does have broad preemption powers over state laws relating to employee benefits plans; it did not apply in this instance because the contested provision did not bind plan administrators to any particular choice nor preclude uniform administrative practice or provide a multitude of regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N.A., Inc., Justice Scalia argued that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts state laws relating to employee benefit plans. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of ERISA's "relate to" clause and contended that it should be interpreted broadly to include any law that has a connection with or reference to such a plan. In his view, California’s prevailing wage law clearly fell within this scope as it made explicit references to apprenticeship standards which are part of an ERISA plan. Therefore, he believed that federal law should supersede state regulation in this matter.