Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. — Ginsburg, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Ginsburg, dissenting, would have held that the Medical Device Amendments do not broadly preempt state common-law claims alleging that an FDA-approved medical device was defectively designed or labeled. She reasoned that the preemption provision primarily addressed conflicting state regulatory regimes, that Congress did not clearly intend to eliminate traditional tort remedies, and that the statute's purpose was to enhance consumer protection. Justice Stevens, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, agreed that the statute's history did not target tort remedies but concluded that its text preempts state-law requirements that differ from federal requirements.