Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

18 

BRUESEWITZ v. WYETH LLC 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the  expressio  unius,  exclusio  alterius  canon.  According  to
the  majority,  because  blackletter  products  liability  law 
generally  recognizes  three  different  types  of  product  de-
fects, “[i]f all three were intended to be preserved, it would 
be  strange  [for  Congress]  to  mention  specifically  only 
two”—namely,  manufacturing  and  labeling  defects  in  the
“even though” clause—“and leave the third to implication.” 
Ante,  at  8.    The  majority’s  argument,  however,  ignores 
that  the  default  rule  under  the  Vaccine  Act  is  that  state 
law  is  preserved.  As  explained  above,  §22(a)  expressly 
provides  that  the  “[g]eneral  rule”  is  that  “State  law  shall 
apply  to  a  civil  action  brought  for  damages  for  a  vaccine-
related  injury  or  death.”    42  U. S. C.  §300aa–22(a).    Be-
cause  §22(a)  already  preserves  state-law  design  defect 
claims  (to  the  extent  the  exemption  in  §22(b)(1)  does  not 
apply),  there  was  no  need  for  Congress  separately  and
expressly  to  preserve  design  defect  claims  in  §22(b)(1). 
Indeed,  Congress’  principal  aim  in  enacting  §22(b)(1)  was
not to preserve manufacturing and labeling claims (those, 
too,  were  already  preserved  by  §22(a)),  but  rather,  to
federalize  comment  k-type  protection  for  “unavoidably 
unsafe”  vaccines.  The  “even  though”  clause  simply  func-
tions to limit the applicability of that defense.  The lack of 
express  language  in  §22(b)(1)  specifically  preserving  de-
sign  defect  claims  thus  cannot  fairly  be  understood  as
impliedly (and categorically)  pre-empting such traditional 
state  tort  claims,  which  had  already  been  preserved  by
§22(a).15 

—————— 

15 This  Court,  moreover,  has  long  operated  on  “the  assumption  that 
the historic police powers of the States are not to be superseded by the 
Federal  Act  unless  that  was  the  clear  and  manifest  purpose  of  Con-
gress.”  Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at
5)  (internal  quotation  marks  and  alteration  omitted).    Given  the  long
history of state regulation of vaccines, see Brief for Petitioners 3–6, the
presumption provides an additional reason not to read §22(b)(1) as pre-
empting all design defect claims, especially given Congress’ inclusion of