Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 938

529US3

Unit: $U62

[09-26-01 12:54:01] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 861 (2000)

863

Syllabus

restraints, starting with a 10% requirement in 1987 vehicles. The
requirement was also conditional and would stay in effect only if two-
thirds of the States did not adopt mandatory buckle-up laws. A rule of
state tort law imposing a duty to install airbags in cars such as petition-
ers’ would have presented an obstacle to the variety and mix of devices
that the federal regulation sought and to the phase-in that the federal
It would also have made adoption of
regulation deliberately imposed.
state mandatory seatbelt laws less likely. This Court’s pre-emption
cases assume compliance with the state law duty in question, and do not
turn on such compliance-related considerations as whether a private
party would ignore state legal obligations or how likely it is that state
law actually would be enforced. Finally, some weight is placed upon
DOT’s interpretation of FMVSS 208’s objectives and its conclusion that
a tort suit such as this one would stand as an obstacle to the accomplish-
ment and execution of those objectives. DOT is likely to have a thor-
ough understanding of its own regulation and its objectives and is
uniquely qualiﬁed to comprehend the likely impact of state require-
ments. Because there is no reason to suspect that the Solicitor Gener-
al’s representation of these views reﬂects anything other than the
agency’s fair and considered judgment on the matter, DOT’s failure in
promulgating FMVSS 208 to address pre-emption explicitly is not deter-
minative. Nor do the agency’s views, as presented here, lack coher-
ence. Pp. 874–886.

166 F. 3d 1236, afﬁrmed.

Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,
C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Stevens, J.,
ﬁled a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ.,
joined, post, p. 886.

Arthur H. Bryant argued the cause for petitioners. With
him on the briefs were Leslie A. Brueckner and Robert M.
N. Palmer.

Malcolm E. Wheeler argued the cause for respondents.
With him on the brief were Benjamin S. Boyd, Mark A.
Brooks, and Brad J. Safon.

Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for
the United States as amicus curiae urging afﬁrmance.
With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Act-
ing Assistant Attorney General Ogden, Matthew D. Roberts,