Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
Page Number: 29

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

7 

BREYER, J., concurring 

in this country,” i.e., by “threaten[ing] a resurgence of the 
very problems which . . . caused Congress to intervene” by
enacting  this  statute.    AAP  Brief  24  (internal  quotation
marks omitted). 

I  would  give  significant  weight  to  the  views  of  HHS.
The  law  charges  HHS  with  responsibility  for  overseeing 
vaccine production and safety.  It is “likely to have a thor-
ough  understanding”  of  the  complicated  and  technical
subject matter of immunization policy, and it is compara-
tively  more  “qualified  to  comprehend  the  likely  impact  of
state requirements.”  Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 
Inc.,  529  U. S.  861,  883  (2000)  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted);  see  Medtronic,  Inc.  v.  Lohr,  518  U. S.  470,  506 
(1996)  (BREYER,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in
judgment) (the agency is in the best position to determine 
“whether (or the extent to which) state requirements may
interfere  with  federal  objectives”).    HHS’s  position  is  par-
ticularly  persuasive  here  because  expert  public  health
organizations support its views and the matter concerns a
medical  and  scientific  question  of  great  importance:  how
best to save the lives of children.  See Skidmore v. Swift & 
Co., 323 U. S. 134 (1944).

In  sum,  congressional  reports  and history,  the  statute’s
basic purpose as revealed by that history, and the views of 
the expert agency along with those of relevant medical and 
scientific associations, all support the Court’s conclusions. 
I consequently agree with the Court.