The U.S. Supreme Court case Exxon Corp. et al v. Hunt, Administrator of New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, et al., 1985 revolved around the issue of whether a state could impose liability on oil companies for cleanup costs and damages resulting from oil spills under its own law when federal law already provided for such liability. The State of New Jersey had enacted the Spill Compensation and Control Act in response to an oil spill off its coast in 1976, which imposed strict liability on those responsible for discharges of petroleum products that caused damage within the state's jurisdictional waters or land areas. Exxon argued that this act was preempted by federal legislation - specifically, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). However, the court held that there was no clear evidence Congress intended FWPCA to preclude all state laws imposing additional liabilities relating to water pollution caused by oil spills; therefore it did not conflict with or infringe upon federal authority over interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Exxon Corp. et al. v. Hunt, Administrator of New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund, et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with Congress' intent when it enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). He believed that Congress intended to allow states to impose additional liability on oil spillers beyond what federal law required and did not intend to preempt state laws like New Jersey's Spill Compensation and Control Act unless they were in direct conflict with FWPCA provisions. The justice also pointed out that there is no evidence suggesting a significant burden on interstate commerce due to variations in state laws regarding oil spills; hence he disagreed with the majority’s view about potential disruption of national uniformity as a reason for preemption.