In the 2006 case of Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Timothy Sorrell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Norfolk Southern Railway Company, overturning a decision by the Missouri Court of Appeals. The issue at hand was whether an employer could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). Sorrell had been injured while working for Norfolk and claimed that his injury was caused partly by his own negligence and partly by that of his employer's. Initially, he won damages from Norfolk based on comparative fault principles which apportioned liability between him and his employers according to their respective degrees of fault. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court it was decided that FELA does not incorporate such principles but instead follows contributory negligence rules where if both parties are found negligent then no damages can be awarded.

In the dissenting opinion for Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Timothy Sorrell, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision to overturn a Vermont Supreme Court ruling was incorrect. She contended that federal law does not preempt state negligence claims in cases where railroad workers are injured on the job and sue their employers under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). According to her, FELA is designed to supplement state laws rather than replace them. Therefore, she believed it was wrong for the majority to rule that Sorrell could not pursue his claim of contributory negligence against Norfolk Southern under Vermont law while also suing under FELA. In essence, she disagreed with how preemption had been applied in this case and felt it undermined states' rights and protections for injured workers.