Opinion ID: 2597548
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Amendment of the FAA Act in 1988, and corresponding regulations, requiring health warning labels and expressly preempting state regulation of such labels

Text: In 1988, Congress amended the FAA Act to require that all wine labels (and the labels of other alcoholic beverages) contain a warning on the back label, as follows: GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems. (27 U.S.C. § 215(a).) Congress gave the BATF authority to issue appropriate regulations to enforce Congress's will (27 U.S.C. § 215(b) (d)), and, stressing the perceived need in this particular area for Congress to exercise the full reach of the Federal Government's constitutional powers in order to establish a comprehensive Federal program (27 U.S.C. § 213), further provided expressly for federal preemption of such health warnings on alcoholic beverage labels: No statement relating to alcoholic beverages and health, other than the statement required by section 215 of this title, shall be required under State law to be placed on any container of an alcoholic beverage. . . . (27 U.S.C. § 216.) The BATF responded by adopting implementing regulations (see 27 C.F.R. § 16.20 et seq.) as well as a provision expressly reaffirming the preemptive effect of that regulation. (27 C.F.R. § 16.32.) As the United States Supreme Court has observed, `an express definition of the pre-emptive reach of a statute . . . supports a reasonable inference . . . that Congress did not intend to pre-empt other matters.' ( Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001) 533 U.S. 525, 541, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 150 L.Ed.2d 532, quoting Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick (1995) 514 U.S. 280, 288, 115 S.Ct. 1483, 131 L.Ed.2d 385; accord, Bass River Associates v. Mayor, Tp. Com'r (3d Cir.1984) 743 F.2d 159, 162 [It is of some interest and no small significance that a provision in the same title does provide for federal preemption of state and local laws or regulations . . .].) This inference and these observations are especially apt here, in light of the history described above, which strongly suggests (i) no intent on the part of Congress, in 1935 or thereafter, to preempt any other category of state wine label laws, and (ii) the BATF's acknowledgement of, and apparent acquiescence in, the more stringent wine labeling laws of the states, and specifically those of Oregon. Indeed if Congress, as Bronco asserts, by enactment of the FAA Act in 1935, already had generally preempted state regulation of wine labels, there would have been no need for any express preemption clause or preemption regulation with respect to the 1988 health warnings for wine labels. Once again, this history reveals no evidence of any clear or manifest intent on the part of Congress or the BATF to preempt state wine labeling regulation such as section 25241. Instead, the history supports an opposite inferencethat neither Congress nor the BATF intended to preempt state wine labeling laws such as section 25241.