Why the Third Circuit Pro-Cooperative Federalism Preemption Holding in Bell Should Ultimately Be Adopted by the Supreme Court
نویسندگان
چکیده
In Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, holding that state common law tort actions were not preempted by the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The Third Circuit found that the savings clause of the CAA was nearly identical to that of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), which had already been found to not preempt state common law tort actions by the U.S. Supreme Court. This Comment argues that the Third Circuit correctly compared the savings clauses of the CAA and the CWA. Further, it argues that the Supreme Court, with its history of allowing states to add to baseline federal safety legislation, would permit this action to stand. It then suggests that the Supreme Court should address the circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fourth Circuits on this issue, and predicts that the Court would come down on the side of the Third Circuit’s permis-
منابع مشابه
Federalism and Federal Agency Reform
This Article assesses three major preemption decisions from the 2008–2009 Term—Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, Wyeth v. Levine, and Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n—for their implications about the role of the states in national administrative governance. The Article argues the decisions are centrally concerned with using state law and preemption analysis to improve federal administration and police a...
متن کاملGobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.: Just Another ERISA Preemption Decision—Or a Bellwether Decision for States and Providers Caught Up In Health Care Reform’s War of Attrition?
S ome Supreme Court rulings decide comparatively isolated legal issues, such as whether religious figures can be placed on the front lawn of a county courthouse without violating the First Amendment. Other Supreme Court rulings decide legal issues which, while certainly important in their own right, have significant and far-reaching legal and/or public policy consequences. Gobeille v. Liberty M...
متن کاملFDA preemption of drug and device labeling: who should decide what goes on a drug label?
The Supreme Court decided an issue that is critical to consumer health and safety last year. In April 2009, the Supreme Court held that extensive FDA regulation of drugs did not preempt a state law claim that an additional warning on the label was necessary to make the drug reasonably safe for use. Thus, states--and even courts and juries--are now free to cast their vote on what a drug label sh...
متن کاملBuckman extended: federal preemption of state fraud-on-the-FDA statutes.
A number of states have enacted statutes that provide protection to drug manufacturers in product liability actions. Additionally, several of these states have enacted "fraud-on-the-FDA" statutory provisions, which remove statutory protection afforded to drug manufacturers in product liability actions if plaintiffs can provide evidence that the drug manufacturer made misrepresentations to the F...
متن کاملPositive Contribution: Why the Second Circuit’s Understanding of CERCLA § 113 Should Make Way for the Third Circuit’s Pro-Settlement Holding in Trinity Industries
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has interpreted section 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, to only allow a party to seek contribution for claims resolved under CERCLA itself, rather than claims resolved under a state statute. In Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ...
متن کامل