Almost all states that the McCarran-Ferguson Act isn’t appropriate considering that the petitioners would not enhance the problem inside their brief. See ante, at 1087-1088, n. 17 (MARSHALL, J., concurring when you look at the judgment to some extent). This misses the purpose. Issue presented is whether or not Congress meant Title VII to avoid employers from providing their employees—pursuant to mention law actuarially sound, sex-based annuities. The McCarran-Ferguson Act is clearly strongly related determining congressional intent. It offers that courts must not presume that Congress designed to supersede state legislation of insurance coverage unless the work at issue “specifically pertains to the continuing company of insurance coverage. ” See n. 5, supra. It consequently is important to think about the applicability associated with McCarran-Ferguson Act in determining Congress’ intent in Title VII. This gift suggestions two questions: whether or not the action at problem under Title VII involves the “business of insurance coverage” and or perhaps a application of Title VII would “invalidate, impair, or supersede” state legislation.