Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 264.0

529US1

Unit: $U36

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

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

189

Breyer, J., dissenting

needed to prove objective intent—even without an express
claim—had been found. The emerging scientiﬁc consensus
about tobacco’s adverse, chemically induced, health effects
may have convinced the agency that it should spend its re-
sources on this important regulatory effort. As for the
change of administrations, I agree with then-Justice Rehn-
quist’s statement in a different case, where he wrote:

“The agency’s changed view . . . seems to be related to
the election of a new President of a different political
party.
It is readily apparent that the responsible mem-
bers of one administration may consider public resist-
ance and uncertainties to be more important than do
their counterparts in a previous administration. A
change in administration brought about by the people
casting their votes is a perfectly reasonable basis for an
executive agency’s reappraisal of the costs and beneﬁts
of its programs and regulations. As long as the agency
remains within the bounds established by Congress, it
is entitled to assess administrative records and evaluate
priorities in light of the philosophy of the administra-
tion.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc.
v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 59
(1983) (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

V

One might nonetheless claim that, even if my interpreta-
tion of the FDCA and later statutes gets the words right, it
lacks a sense of their “music.” See Helvering v. Gregory, 69
F. 2d 809, 810–811 (CA2 1934) (L. Hand, J.) (“[T]he meaning
of a [statute] may be more than that of the separate words,
as a melody is more than the notes . . .”). Such a claim
might rest on either of two grounds.

First, one might claim that, despite the FDA’s legal right
to change its mind, its original statements played a critical
part in the enactment of the later statutes and now should
play a critical part in their interpretation. But the FDA’s