WSJ: Tres sentencias del Supremo invalidan diposiciones estatales

El Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos dictó sentencia en los procesos Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn. y Preston v. Ferrer. En todos estos casos invalidó disposiciones de leyes estatales.


Pueden ver la entrevista en video realizada por The Wall Street Journal

High Court Overrules 3 State Laws

Justices Back Congress
As Dominant Regulator
Of Interstate Commerce

By JESS BRAVIN
February 21, 2008; Page A8

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court delivered three opinions yesterday that set aside state laws, underscoring the dominant role of Congress in regulating commerce among states.

The rulings involved three different states and dealt with unrelated issues: product liability in New York for a faulty medical device, Maine's attempt to keep cigarettes from minors and a California law aimed at protecting star-struck Hollywood hopefuls from unscrupulous talent agents. In each case and by votes unanimous -- or nearly so -- the justices made clear that federal power is to be read broadly, with state authority surviving only when Congress explicitly permits it a role.

FEDERAL POWERS

• The News: The Supreme Court set aside state laws as it ruled on three cases dealing with unrelated issues -- product liability, selling cigarettes to minors and contract arbitration.
• The Bottom Line: In unanimous, or nearly unanimous decisions, the court made clear that federal power is to be read broadly, with state authority surviving only when Congress explicitly permits it a role.

The medical-device case may have the widest impact, because of the high-profile nature of medical-liability cases. The question at issue was whether traditional private-product lawsuits, as well as state regulations, may be pre-empted by federal law.

After a catheter ruptured during angioplasty, the patient and his wife sued the manufacturer, Medtronic Inc. Lower courts in New York dismissed the suit, finding that a 1976 law immunized Minneapolis-based Medtronic, because its catheter had been approved for sale by the Food and Drug Administration.

Writing for an 8-1 court, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that Congress acted after a slew of medical-device failures, and decided it would be better to have a single national standard instead of varying state laws. Justice Scalia added that states remained free to permit private lawsuits "for claims premised on a violation of FDA regulations."

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the 1976 law was intended to add to consumer protections under existing state product-liability laws, not to replace them. (Riegel v. Medtronic Inc.)

The Maine case involved a different kind of health question -- that of keeping cigarettes from minors. Concerned that youngsters could evade proof-of-age rules by ordering cigarettes online, the state adopted a law requiring shipping companies delivering cigarettes to verify the recipient's identity and age.

Maine said its law wasn't intended to displace federal law regulating private shippers, but rather to protect public health -- and noted that Congress itself had pushed states to discourage youth smoking. A trade group representing delivery companies complained that Maine's requirements were costly, burdensome and contrary to a 1994 federal law that pre-empted state trucking regulations.

MORE

• Split Decisions: Cases That Have Divided the Court¹

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed. The opinion, by Justice Stephen Breyer, said the Maine law "produces the very effect that the federal law sought to avoid, namely a State's direct substitution of its own governmental commands for 'competitive market forces.'" Congress had created no exception for "public health," and since the term "public health" was so vague, inferring it into the statute could lead to different rules imposed by various states, frustrating the goal of a single, efficient market for delivery services. (Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association)

In the California case, the justices underlined the wide scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, finding that when two parties sign a contract agreeing to arbitrate disputes, it supplants a state law assigning such conflicts to a regulatory agency. The court has heard many arbitration cases over the years, and every day, millions of television viewers watch arbitration in action, on TV "court" shows, where a retired judge, dressed in robes, settles disputes as an arbitrator. But, as reported in a page-one article² in The Wall Street Journal last month, never before had the worlds of the Supreme Court and "The People's Court" intersected.

In this case, Alex Ferrer, a former Florida state judge who now stars in "Judge Alex," a TV show, had sought to void an arbitration clause in a contract with his former manager, Arnold Preston. Mr. Ferrer argued that California's Talent Agencies Act, which assigns disputes between agents and clients to the state labor commissioner, took precedence over the arbitration clause. A California state court agreed, only to be reversed 8-1 yesterday. Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg observed that "under the contract he signed, [Mr. Ferrer] cannot escape resolution of those rights in an arbitral forum." "Judge Alex" is produced by Twentieth Television, a unit of News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal. (Preston v. Ferrer)

Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com³

URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120351500009479905.html