October Term 2007 · Docket 06-1498
Does federal law block state tort claims against drug makers?
Warner-Lambert argues federal law bars state tort suits. Kent argues state law allows these claims.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Warner-Lambert argues federal law preempts state tort claims.
Kent argues state law permits tort claims against drug makers.
questions
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 27-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 27-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 21-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 21-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Warner-Lambert argues federal law preempts state tort claims. Kent argues state law permits these claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 21-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 21-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 25, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Warner-Lambert wants the Court to dismiss Kent's state tort claims.
Kent wants the Court to allow her state tort claims to proceed.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 21-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 21-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
What each side says
Warner-Lambert argues federal law preempts state tort claims against drug makers.
Kent argues state law permits tort claims against drug makers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 21-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 21-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if immunity and its limits are inseparable.
Justice Scalia asked if Congress allows tort actions for FDA violations.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 27-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 27-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-25
Why it matters
This case determines whether state courts can hear drug injury claims. It affects patient access to legal remedies. It shapes the balance between federal regulation and state law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 21-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 21-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 27-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 27-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-51 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-25
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 21-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 21-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 21-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 21-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.