Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 242

529US1

Unit: $U36

[09-26-01 08:36:38] PAGES PGT: OPIN

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

167

Breyer, J., dissenting

But it should not have seemed unlikely that, assuming the
FDA decided to regulate and proved the particular juris-
dictional prerequisites, the courts would rule such a juris-
dictional assertion fully authorized. Cf. United States v.
Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157, 172 (1968) (reading
Communications Act of 1934 as authorizing FCC jurisdic-
tion to regulate cable systems while noting that “Congress
could not in 1934 have foreseen the development of ” ad-
vanced communications systems). After all, this Court has
read more narrowly phrased statutes to grant what might
have seemed even more unlikely assertions of agency juris-
diction. See, e. g., Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390
U. S. 747, 774–777 (1968) (statutory authority to regulate in-
terstate “transportation” of natural gas includes authority to
regulate “prices” charged by ﬁeld producers); Phillips Petro-
leum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672, 677–684 (1954) (inde-
pendent gas producer subject to regulation despite Natural
Gas Act’s express exemption of gathering and production
facilities).

I shall not pursue these general matters further, for nei-
ther the companies nor the majority denies that the FDCA’s
literal language, its general purpose, and its particular legis-
lative history favor the FDA’s present jurisdictional view.
Rather, they have made several speciﬁc arguments in sup-
port of one basic contention: Even if the statutory delegation
is broad, it is not broad enough to include tobacco.
I now
turn to each of those arguments.

II
A

The tobacco companies contend that the FDCA’s words
cannot possibly be read to mean what they literally say.
The statute deﬁnes “device,” for example, as “an instrument,
apparatus,
in
implement, machine, contrivance,
vitro reagent, or other similar or related article . . . intended
to affect the structure or any function of the body . . . .” 21

implant,