The Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller case in 1987 revolved around a conflict between state and federal jurisdiction over safety regulations at a nuclear facility operated by the Goodyear Atomic Corporation for the Department of Energy (DOE). The Ohio Bureau of Employment Services had awarded workers' compensation to Carl Miller, an employee who was injured on site. However, Goodyear contested this decision arguing that as they were operating under a federal contract for the DOE, they should be exempt from state regulation and instead subject only to federal law - specifically, the Price-Anderson Act which governs liability issues related to nuclear incidents. The Supreme Court ruled against Goodyear's claim stating that nothing in either the contractual agreement with DOE or within Price-Anderson Act precluded application of state law regarding worker’s compensation claims arising from non-radiological hazards at such facilities. Therefore, it upheld Ohio's right to award workers' compensation without infringing upon any preemptive regulatory authority held by Federal Government under Atomic Energy Act.

In the dissenting opinion for Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts jurisdiction over state workers' compensation laws was a departure from established precedent and an unnecessary expansion of federal power at the expense of states' rights. He contended that Congress did not intend for such broad interpretation when it enacted the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), which aimed to ensure safety in nuclear facilities rather than regulate worker compensation claims arising from these facilities. The ERA should not be used as a basis for overriding Ohio’s law on this matter, he asserted, because there is no conflict between state and federal interests here; both aim to protect workers’ health and safety in nuclear plants without impeding their operation or production capabilities. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such intrusion into traditional areas of state control could lead to increased litigation costs and delays due to unfamiliarity with complex local laws by federal judges.