Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

12 

BRUESEWITZ v. WYETH LLC 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

1987 had a number of options before it, including adopting
an entirely different compensation scheme, as the Reagan
administration  was  proposing;11  establishing  different
limitations  on  tort  liability,  including  eliminating  design
defect  liability,  as  pharmaceutical  industry  leaders  were 
advocating;12 or not funding the compensation program at 
all,  which  would  have  effectively  nullified  the  relevant 
portions of the Act.  Because the tort reforms in the 1986 
Act,  including  §22(b)(1),  had  no  operative  legal  effect 
unless  and  until  Congress  provided  funding  for  the  com-
pensation program, the views of the Congress that enacted 
that funding legislation are a proper and, indeed, authori-
tative  guide  to  the  meaning  of  §22(b)(1).    Those  views, as 
reflected  in  the  1987  Report,  provide  unequivocal  confir-

—————— 

ing  mechanism  is  akin  to  appropriations  legislation  and  that  giving 
weight to the legislative history of such legislation “would set a danger-
ous  precedent.”  Ante,  at  18.    The  difference,  of  course,  is  that  appro-
priations  legislation  ordinarily  funds  congressional  enactments  that
already  have  operative  legal  effect;  in  contrast,  operation  of  the  tort 
reforms in the 1986 Act, including §22(b)(1), was expressly conditioned 
on the enactment of a separate tax to fund the compensation program. 
See  §323(a),  100  Stat.  3784.    Accordingly,  this  Court’s  general  reluc-
tance  to  view  appropriations  legislation  as  modifying  substantive 
legislation,  see,  e.g.,  TVA  v.  Hill,  437  U. S.  153,  190  (1978),  has  no 
bearing here. 

11 See  1987  Report  700  (describing  the  administration’s  alternative 

proposal). 

12 See,  e.g.,  Hearings  on  Funding  of  the  Childhood  Vaccine  Program
before  the  Subcommittee  on  Select  Revenue  Measures  of  the  House 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  100th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  85  (1987)
(“[T]he liability provisions of the 1986 Act should be amended to assure
that  manufacturers  will  not  be  found  liable  in  the  tort  system  if  they
have  fully  complied  with  applicable  government  regulations.    In  par-
ticular,  manufacturers  should  not  face  liability  under  a  ‘design  defect’ 
theory in cases where plaintiffs challenge the decisions of public health 
authorities  and  federal  regulators  that  the  licensed  vaccines  are  the
best available way to protect children from deadly diseases” (statement
of Robert B. Johnson, President, Lederle Laboratories Division, Ameri-
can Cyanamid Co.)).