Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

Cite as:  562 U. S. ____ (2011) 

1 

BREYER, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 09–152 
_________________ 

RUSSELL BRUESEWITZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 

WYETH LLC, FKA WYETH, INC., FKA WYETH

LABORATORIES, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 [February 22, 2011] 

JUSTICE BREYER, concurring. 
I  join  the  Court’s  judgment  and  opinion.  In  my  view,
the  Court  has  the  better  of  the  purely  textual  argument. 
But  the  textual  question  considered  alone  is  a  close 
one.  Hence,  like  the  dissent,  I  would  look  to  other 
sources,  including  legislative  history,  statutory  purpose, 
and  the  views  of  the  federal  administrative  agency,  here
supported by expert medical opinion.  Unlike the dissent, 
however,  I  believe  these  other  sources  reinforce  the 
Court’s conclusion. 

I 
House  Committee  Report  99–908  contains  an  “authori-
tative”  account  of  Congress’  intent  in  drafting  the  pre-
emption  clause  of  the  National  Childhood  Vaccine  Injury
Act of 1986 (NCVIA or Act).  See Garcia v. United States, 
469  U. S.  70,  76  (1984)  (“[T]he  authoritative  source  for 
finding  the  Legislature’s  intent  lies  in  the  Committee
Reports on the bill”).  That Report says that, “if” vaccine-
injured persons 

“cannot demonstrate under applicable law either that
a  vaccine  was  improperly  prepared  or  that  it  was  ac-
companied  by  improper  directions  or  inadequate 
warnings  [they]  should  pursue  recompense  in  the