Today in the News, 3.6.09
- “The idea that corporations are shielded from state liability claims by federal rules is relatively new and was pushed aggressively under the Bush administration.” AP reports (as the NY Times hasextensively) that Democrats in Congress are introducing a bill that would overturn the Supreme Court’s major preemption ruling last year in Riegel v. Medtronic.
- “They are running around like a lot of headless chickens.” Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) offers a rather gloomy depiction of the FDA in an article from Newsday about how federal drug regulators are foundering under a lack of resources, illustrating exactly why this week’s Wyeth decision was necessary (h/t Kia Franklin at Tort Deform). Also, more interesting debate on Wyeth, in support of and opposition to the decision, in USA Today.
- “I had one [letter] that said, ‘I don’t agree with any of your opinions, but I hope you get well soon.'” Lastly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks out about recovering from surgery for cancer, and her desire to remain on the Court for several more years. (USA Today)
More from
December 11, 2025
Not Above the Law Coalition Demands Accountability: Trump’s Illegal National Guard Deployments Threaten Democracy
WASHINGTON - As the Senate Armed Services Committee holds a hearing on the Trump administration’s deployment...
December 14, 2025
The Framers Warned Us About the Dangers of Corruption
December 11, 2025We Seem to Have the Supreme Court’s Originalism Fail of the Term
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard argument in a case that could upend how the...
December 9, 2025
CAC Release: Major Campaign Finance Case Tests Court’s Willingness to Respect Congress’s Policy Judgments Aimed at Curbing Harmful Corruption
WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in National Republican...
December 8, 2025
CAC Release: Conservative Justices Neglect History at Oral Argument in Monumental Case about Independent Agencies
WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Trump v....
U.S. Supreme Court
Pung v. Isabella County
In Pung v. Isabella County, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is implicated when a local government seizes real property to satisfy a tax debt and then...