Traditionally, the United States Supreme Court has followed a presumption against pre-emption. In June, however, in the case of Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011), the Court ruled in favor of federal pre-emption of failure-to-warn claims brought against generic manufacturers of prescription drugs under state law.
Mensing is seemingly inconsistent with the Court’s ruling two years ago in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct 1187 (2009). In the Levine decision, often touted as the “mother” of all pre-emption rulings, the high Court found that failure-to-warn claims asserted against name-brand prescription drug manufacturers are not pre-empted by federal law. Accordingly, because Mensing represents such a significant development in the law of federal pre-emption, it is certain to have considerable impact on product liability law, generally, and prescription drug liability specifically.
The Historical Underpinnings ofImplied Pre-emption
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
