Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
Page Number: 53

24 

BRUESEWITZ v. WYETH LLC 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

case  for  federal  pre-emption  is  particularly  weak  where
Congress  has  indicated  its  awareness  of  the  operation  of 
state law in a field of federal interest, and has nonetheless 
decided to stand by both concepts and to tolerate whatever
tension there is between them.”  (internal quotation marks 
and alteration omitted)). 

III 

In  enacting  the  Vaccine  Act,  Congress  established  a 
carefully  wrought  federal  scheme  that  balances  the  com-
peting  interests  of  vaccine-injured  persons  and  vaccine
manufacturers.  As  the  legislative  history  indicates,  the
Act  addressed  “two  overriding  concerns”:  “(a)  the  inade-
quacy—from  both  the  perspective  of  vaccine-injured  per-
sons  as  well  as  vaccine  manufacturers—of  the  current 
approach  to  compensating  those  who  have  been  damaged 
by a vaccine; and (b) the instability and unpredictability of 
the  childhood  vaccine  market.”  1986  Report  7.  When 
viewed  in  the  context  of  the  Vaccine  Act  as  a  whole, 
§22(b)(1)  is  just  one  part  of  a  broader  statutory  scheme
that  balances  the  need  for  compensating  vaccine-injured
children with added liability protections for vaccine manu-
facturers to ensure a stable childhood vaccine market. 

The  principal  innovation  of  the  Act  was  the  creation  of
the  no-fault  compensation  program—a  scheme  funded 
entirely through an excise tax on vaccines.22  Through that 

—————— 

that  Congress  intended  sub  silentio  to  displace  a  longstanding  species 
of  state  tort  liability  where,  as  here,  Congress  specifically  included  an
express  saving  clause  preserving  state  law,  there  is  a  long  history  of
state-law  regulation  of  vaccine  design,  and  pre-emption  of  state  law
would  leave  an  important  regulatory  function—i.e.,  ensuring  optimal
vaccine design—entirely unaddressed by the congressional substitute. 

22 The  majority’s  suggestion  that  “vaccine  manufacturers  fund  from 
their  sales”  the  compensation  program  is  misleading.    Ante,  at  15. 
Although the manufacturers nominally pay the tax, the amount of the 
tax  is  specifically  included  in  the  vaccine  price  charged  to  purchasers. 
See  CDC  Vaccine  Price  List  (Feb.  15,  2011),  http://www.cdc.gov/