ACSBlog: The Blog of the American Constitution Society

ACS recently hosted a panel discussion on the upcoming Supreme Court case, Riegel v. Medtronic, which deals with whether state tort claims are preempted by approval of a medical device by the Food and Drug Administration. Experts from a variety of perspectives presented their views on the case and previewed some of the points likely to be raised when the Supreme Court hears oral argument on December 4th. In addition, panelists discussed preemption doctrine and its application in the health and safety arena. More coverage of the 2007-2008 Supreme Court Term is available here.

Moderated by Paul T. Kim, Partner, Foley Hoag L.L.P., the panel included David C. Vladeck, professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Catherine M. Sharkey, professor, New York University School of Law, David C. Frederick, partner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. and Richard A. Samp, Chief Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation. Streaming video is available here.

Paul Kim sets forth the facts and procedural history of Riegel v. Medtronic.

David Vladeck outlines his view that Congress never intended to remote state tort claims in Riegel v. Medtronic.
 

David Vladeck suggests that the administration is engaging in preemption through fiat, raising questions about the authority of agencies to engage in lawmaking.

David Frederick states that the administration is so pro-preemption as to shift the focus "out of equilibrium," creating significant costs and risks to the system.

Catherine M. Sharkey explains that the Court gives great deference to an agency's views regarding whether to preempt.

David Vladeck discusses occasions when Congress preempts, noting that it does so carefully and explicitly.