Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 962.0

529US3

Unit: $U62

[09-26-01 12:54:02] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 861 (2000)

887

Stevens, J., dissenting

“This is a case about federalism,” Coleman v. Thompson,
501 U. S. 722, 726 (1991), that is, about respect for “the con-
stitutional role of the States as sovereign entities.” Alden
v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 713 (1999).
It raises important ques-
tions concerning the way in which the Federal Government
may exercise its undoubted power to oust state courts of
their traditional jurisdiction over common-law tort actions.
The rule the Court enforces today was not enacted by Con-
gress and is not to be found in the text of any Executive
Order or regulation.
It has a unique origin: It is the prod-
uct of the Court’s interpretation of the ﬁnal commentary ac-
companying an interim administrative regulation and the
history of airbag regulation generally. Like many other
judge-made rules, its contours are not precisely deﬁned.
I
believe, however, that it is fair to state that if it had been
expressly adopted by the Secretary of Transportation,
it
would have read as follows:

“No state court shall entertain a common-law tort action
based on a claim that an automobile was negligently or
defectively designed because it was not equipped with
an airbag;
“Provided, however, that this rule shall not apply to cars
manufactured before September 1, 1986, or after such
time as the Secretary may require the installation of
airbags in all new cars; and
“Provided further, that this rule shall not preclude a
claim by a driver who was not wearing her seatbelt that
an automobile was negligently or defectively designed
because it was not equipped with any passive restraint
whatsoever, or a claim that an automobile with particu-
lar design features was negligently or defectively de-
signed because it was equipped with one type of passive
restraint instead of another.”

Perhaps such a rule would be a wise component of a legisla-
I express no opinion about
tive reform of our tort system.