Almost all states that the McCarran-Ferguson Act isn't appropriate considering that the petitioners failed to enhance the problem inside their brief. See ante, at 1087-1088, n. 17 (MARSHALL, J., concurring into the judgment in component). This misses the purpose. Issue presented is whether Congress intended Title VII to stop companies from offering their employees—pursuant to mention law actuarially sound, sex-based annuities. The McCarran-Ferguson Act is clearly highly relevant to determining congressional intent. It offers that courts must not presume that Congress meant to supersede state legislation of insurance coverage unless the work in concern "specifically relates to the company of insurance. " See n. 5, supra. It therefore is essential to think about the applicability of this McCarran-Ferguson Act in determining Congress' intent in Title VII. This gift suggestions two concerns: if the action at problem under Title VII involves the "business of insurance coverage" and if the application of Title VII would "invalidate, impair, or supersede" state legislation.
Nobody doubts that the dedication of just how risk must be spread among classes of insureds is a important area of the "business of insurance coverage. " See Group Lifestyle & Wellness Ins. Co. V. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205, 213, 99 S. Ct. 1067, 1074, 59 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1979); SEC v. Variable Annuity Co., 359 U.S. 65, 73, 79 S. Ct. 618, 623, 3 L. Ed. 2d 640, (1959). להמשיך לקרוא