Lexplug logoLexplug

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson

Supreme Court of United States
478 U.S. 804 (1986)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state-law claim alleging a violation of a federal statute as an element of the cause of action does not arise under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction if Congress has determined there should be no private federal cause of action for the violation.


Facts:

  • The Thompson respondents, residents of Canada, and the MacTavish respondents, residents of Scotland, filed lawsuits against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
  • Merrell Dow manufactured and distributed the drug Bendectin.
  • The mothers in both families ingested Bendectin during their pregnancies.
  • The children of these mothers were born with multiple deformities.
  • The complaints alleged that Bendectin was 'misbranded' in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) because its labeling failed to provide adequate warning of potential dangers.
  • The complaints asserted that this violation of the FDCA constituted a rebuttable presumption of negligence under state common law.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Thompson and MacTavish families filed complaints against Merrell Dow in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, a state trial court.
  • Merrell Dow, the defendant, filed a timely petition to remove the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asserting federal question jurisdiction.
  • The plaintiffs moved to remand the cases to state court, arguing the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
  • The District Court denied the motion to remand, finding that the claim based on the FDCA violation arose under federal law.
  • The District Court then granted Merrell Dow's motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens.
  • The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the jurisdictional ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the causes of action did not arise under federal law and were improperly removed.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state-law tort claim that alleges a violation of a federal statute as an element of the claim 'arise under' the laws of the United States for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when Congress has not provided a private federal cause of action for the violation?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stevens

No, a complaint alleging a violation of a federal statute as an element of a state cause of action, when Congress has determined that there should be no private, federal cause of action for the violation, does not state a claim 'arising under' federal law. The Court reasoned that federal question jurisdiction requires that a state-law claim necessarily turn on a 'substantial' question of federal law. The determination by Congress that there should be no private federal remedy for a violation of a federal statute is tantamount to a congressional conclusion that the federal interest is not substantial enough to confer federal-question jurisdiction. Allowing federal jurisdiction in such cases would flout or undermine congressional intent by providing a federal forum and remedy where Congress intended none to exist. The Court also rejected arguments that the need for uniform interpretation or the novelty of the federal issue were sufficient to create jurisdiction, noting that the Supreme Court retains appellate jurisdiction to review federal issues decided in state courts.


Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes, the state-law claim does arise under federal law. The dissent argued that under the long-standing rule of Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., federal jurisdiction is proper when the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on the construction of federal law. Here, the respondents' negligence per se claim depended entirely on proving a violation of the FDCA. The majority improperly conflates the question of a private federal remedy with the question of federal jurisdiction. The purposes of federal jurisdiction—ensuring uniformity and leveraging the expertise of federal courts in interpreting federal law—are best served by allowing such cases in federal court, especially since the FDCA's own enforcement scheme relies on federal courts.



Analysis:

This decision significantly narrows the 'embedded federal question' path to federal jurisdiction established by Smith. It effectively creates a new threshold inquiry: whether Congress intended to create a private federal remedy for the violation of the statute in question. By linking the jurisdictional analysis under § 1331 to the implied right of action analysis, the Court made it much more difficult for plaintiffs to bring state-law claims with federal components into federal court. This holding prioritizes congressional intent regarding remedies over the mere presence of a federal issue, thus shifting a class of cases from federal to state courts.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson (1986)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"