Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 942

529US3

Unit: $U62

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

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

867

Opinion of the Court

In reaching our conclusion, we consider three subsidiary
questions. First, does the Act’s express pre-emption pro-
vision pre-empt this lawsuit? We think not. Second, do or-
dinary pre-emption principles nonetheless apply? We hold
that they do. Third, does this lawsuit actually conﬂict with
FMVSS 208, hence with the Act itself? We hold that it
does.

II

We ﬁrst ask whether the Safety Act’s express pre-emption
provision pre-empts this tort action. The provision reads
as follows:

“Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard es-
tablished under this subchapter is in effect, no State or
political subdivision of a State shall have any authority
either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect
to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equip-
ment[,] any safety standard applicable to the same as-
pect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment
which is not identical to the Federal standard.”
15
U. S. C. § 1392(d) (1988 ed.).

American Honda points out that a majority of this Court has
said that a somewhat similar statutory provision in a differ-
ent federal statute—a provision that uses the word “require-
ments”—may well expressly pre-empt similar tort actions.
See, e. g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470, 502–504
(1996) (plurality opinion); id., at 503–505 (Breyer, J., concur-
ring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 509–512
(O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Petitioners reply that this statute speaks of pre-empting a
state-law “safety standard,” not a “requirement,” and that a
tort action does not involve a safety standard. Hence, they
conclude, the express pre-emption provision does not apply.
We need not determine the precise signiﬁcance of the use
of the word “standard,” rather than “requirement,” however,
for the Act contains another provision, which resolves the