LITIGATION

» Access to Courts and Court Remedies

» Campaign Finance and Election Laws

» Constitutional Rights and Requirements

» Health, Safety, and the Environment

» Open Government and Open Courts

» Representing Consumers

» Workers' Rights

Currently Featured Topics

Government Transparency
Consumer Justice
First Amendment
Health, Safety and the Environment

Additional Resources

About Us
Case List
Recent News Alerts
Recent Publications


SUPREME COURT
ASSISTANCE PROJECT

Read about our work helping lawyers
with cases in the Supreme Court.

 

Learn More About Preserving State Consumer Laws


More Resources on Preserving State Consumer Laws

Preemption

Public Citizen believes that tort law is rightly a matter of state, not federal, concern and that, absent an express congressional determination to the contrary, states should remain free to compensate tort plaintiffs as they deem appropriate. With this principle in mind, our Litigation Group, since the early 1990s, has been a leader in fighting against the argument that federal regulation bars, or "preempts," state-law claims seeking damages for injuries caused by consumer products. Although defendants most frequently assert the preemption defense in product liability and deceptive marketing practices cases, it is also raised in other areas, such as employment cases. 

Cases on Preemption

To read more about our cases on this topic, click here


 

Articles on Preemption


Wyeth v. Levine and Its Implications (May 2009) Copyright The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

Former Public Citizen Litigation Group Director Brian Wolfman has written an article on the Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine, which held that FDA approval of a prescription drug and its labeling does not preempt a state-law suit seeking damages based on injuries caused by the failure of the drug's manufacturer to warn about the drug's dangers.

US Supreme Court Case: A Victory for Patients. (April 2008) Copyright Informa UK Ltd 2008.

Litigation Group Director Allison Zieve discusses the implications for patients of the Supreme Court's decision in Warner-Lambert v Kent.

Supreme Court Decision May be Hazardous to Patients. (March/April 2008) Copyright Informa UK Ltd 2008.

In February 2008, the Supreme Court held that the law that provides authority for the FDA to regulate devices also severely limits the right of injured patients to sue device manufacturers. In this article, Litigation Group Director Allison Zieve explains why this decision creates a hazardous hole in the US system for protecting public health.

Why Preemption Proponents Are Wrong. (March 2007) Posted with permission of TRIAL. Copyright American Association for Justice.

In this article, former Litigation Group Director Brian Wolfman provides insights into defeating preemption defenses and explains that, in fact, protection of the public is maximized when court remedies are allowed to work alongside federal regulation.

The FDA's Argument for Eradicating State Tort Law: Why It Is Wrong and Warrants No Deference (March 27, 2006) Posted with permission of the Bureau of National Affairs

In January 2006, in a notice announcing the issuance of new drug labeling regulations, the Food and Drug Administration stated that FDA approval of a new drug preempts a range of product liability claims brought by patients injured by prescription drugs. In this article, attorneys Allison M. Zieve and Brian Wolfman explain why the FDA's preemption position is bad law, bad policy, and warrants no deference from the courts.

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.