Bookmark and Share



» Access to Courts and Court Remedies

» Campaign Finance and Election Laws

» Constitutional Rights and Requirements

» Health, Safety, and Environment

» Open Government and Open Courts

» Representing Consumers

» Workers' Rights

Currently Featured Topics

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


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


  Public Citizen | Litigation Cases ***Search other cases***

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett

Topic(s): Preemption of Consumer Remedies
Docket: 12-142



Karen Bartlett was severely injured by the prescription pain reliever Sulindac, which she took in generic form. She brought a state-law design-defect claim against the manufacturer of the drug, and a jury ruled in her favor. The company is asserting, however that her suit is barred by federal regulation of generic prescription drugs and, even further, that federal regulation preempts design-defect claims concerning brand-name prescription drugs as well. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the company’s petition for certiorari to consider the preemption question.

Filed on behalf of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), our amicus brief argues that the text and purpose of the federal law regulating prescription drugs, as well as more than 75 years of history in which damages suits and federal drug regulation have co-existed, show that design-defect claims are not preempted. Moreover, whether federal law should bar state-law claims is a policy decision that should not be made by the Court but instead is properly left to Congress.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the First Circuit and held that federal regulation preempts design-defect claims against manufacturers of generic drugs.

Copyright © 2017 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.