Powered by USC Law http://mylaw.usc.edu/blogCruz The U.S. Supreme Court today decided <a href="javascript:void(0);/*1236188519442*/"><em>Wyeth v. Levine</em></a>, holding 6-3 that a drug manufacture could be sued under Vermont products liability law for failure to give adequate warnings even though its drug label had been approved by the Food &amp; Drug Administration.<br /> <br /> Justice Stevens's majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, rejected the argument that federal law and the label approval preempted the suit brought under state law.&nbsp; Justice Thomas did not join the majority opinion but agree with it judgment; he wrote separately to question judicial invalidation of state law under &quot;implied preemption&quot; doctrine (as distinguished from cases where federal statutes expressly specify that they are preempting state law) based on nebulous &quot;frustration&quot; of federal purposes.&nbsp; Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, dissented, arguing that Supreme Court precedent and general principles of implied preemption forbade this suit under state law.&nbsp; <br /> <br /> As a consequence of today's decision, states retain important freedom to protect their residents from harms flowing from inadequate warnings on pharmaceuticals.&nbsp; http://mylaw.usc.edu/blogCruz/1/2009/03/You-Make-Me-Sick.cfm 2009-03-04T09:43:44-08:00 U.S. Supreme Court,preemption, products liability