Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
Since McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, this Court has interpreted the Supremacy Clause as prohibiting States from interfering
with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government. This
constitutional doctrine—often called the intergovernmental immunity
doctrine—has evolved to bar state laws that either regulate the United
States directly or discriminate against the Federal Government or its
contractors. A state law discriminates against the Federal Government or its contractors if it “single[s them] out” for less favorable
“treatment,” Washington v. United States, 460 U. S. 536, 546, or if it
regulates them unfavorably on some basis related to their governmental “status,” North Dakota v. United States, 495 U. S. 423, 438 (plurality opinion).
Washington’s law violates these principles by singling out the Federal Government for unfavorable treatment. The law explicitly treats
federal workers differently than state or private workers, and imposes
costs upon the Federal Government that state and private entities do
not bear. The law thus violates the Supremacy Clause unless Congress
has consented to such regulation through waiver.