Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 258.0

529US1

Unit: $U36

[09-26-01 08:36:39] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 120 (2000)

183

Breyer, J., dissenting

stance that the majority ﬁnds signiﬁcant. See ante, at 144,
147–148, 155. But cf. Southwestern Cable Co., supra, at 170
(failed requests do not prove agency “did not already pos-
sess” authority).
In fact, Congress both failed to grant ex-
press authority to the FDA when the FDA denied it had
jurisdiction over tobacco and failed to take that authority
expressly away when the agency later asserted jurisdiction.
See, e. g., S. 1262, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., § 906 (1995) (failed
bill seeking to amend FDCA to say that “[n]othing in this
Act or any other Act shall provide the [FDA] with any au-
thority to regulate in any manner tobacco or tobacco prod-
ucts”); see also H. R. 516, 105th Cong., 1st Sess., § 2 (1997)
(similar); H. R. Res. 980, reprinted in 142 Cong. Rec. 5018
(1996)
(Georgia legislators unsuccessfully requested that
Congress “rescind any action giving the FDA authority”
over tobacco); H. R. 2283, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995) (failed
bill “[t]o prohibit the [FDA] regulation of the sale or use
of tobacco”); H. R. 2414, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., § 2(a) (1995)
(similar). Consequently, the defeat of various different pro-
posed jurisdictional changes proves nothing. This history
shows only that Congress could not muster the votes neces-
sary either to grant or to deny the FDA the relevant author-
It neither favors nor disfavors the majority’s position.
ity.
The majority also mentions the speed with which Con-
gress acted to take jurisdiction away from other agencies
once they tried to assert it. See ante, at 145, 149–151. But
such a congressional response again proves nothing. On the
one hand, the speedy reply might suggest that Congress
somehow resented agency assertions of jurisdiction in an
area it desired to reserve for itself—a consideration that sup-
ports the majority. On the other hand, Congress’ quick re-
action with respect to other agencies’ regulatory efforts con-
trasts dramatically with its failure to enact any responsive
law (at any speed) after the FDA asserted jurisdiction over
tobacco more than three years ago. And that contrast sup-
ports the opposite conclusion.