Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson
Encyclopedia
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804
(1986), was a United States Supreme Court
decision involving the original jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).
, and the MacTavishes, residents of Scotland
, filed virtually identical complaints against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio
, claiming negligence, fraud, breach of warranty, and misbranding in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA). The mother in each family had taken the drug Bendectin
during pregnancy
which they claimed caused harm to their children including birth defects.
?
grounds. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
reversed claiming that the FDCA did not create or imply a private right to sue for injury resulting in no federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Holmes "Creation" Test:
The "vast majority" of cases that come within this grant of jurisdiction are covered by Justice Holmes
' statement that a "`suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.'" Id., at 8-9, quoting American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.
, 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916).
Franchise Tax Board Test:
the court has also granted jurisdiction "where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turned on some construction of federal law" American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916)
Smith Test (Quoting from the dissent):
"The general rule is that where it appears from the bill or statement of the plaintiff that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that such federal claim is not merely colorable, and rests upon a reasonable foundation, the District Court has jurisdiction [478 U.S. 804, 820] under [the statute granting federal question jurisdiction]." 255 U.S., at 199 .
affirmed the Sixth Circuit and ruled that there was no Federal Question Subject Matter jurisdiction.
The Court states that the significance of the lack of a Federal cause of action "cannot be overstated." The ruling relies heavily on the notion of respect for congressional intent. The Court interprets the fact that Congress did not create a cause of action to be conclusive evidence that Congress did not intend for claimed violations of the FDCA as elements of a state cause of action to be "substantial" enough to confer federal-question jurisdiction.
It was not entirely clear from the opinion whether lack of a private cause of action will always be dispositive in every case. The Court clarified the issue in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), saying that the absence of a right of action is relevant evidence of congressional intent, but does not necessarily decide the question in all cases.
It is important to note that Merrell Dow interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question jurisdictional statute, rather than Article III of the United States Constitution. In this way it is like the well-pleaded complaint rule of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
: Congress may have the power to grant federal jurisdiction in this circumstance, but the Court read § 1331 as not expressing an intent to do so.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1986), was a United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
decision involving the original jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).
Facts
Thompson, residents of CanadaCanada
Canada is a North American country consisting of ten provinces and three territories. Located in the northern part of the continent, it extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west, and northward into the Arctic Ocean...
, and the MacTavishes, residents of Scotland
Scotland
Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it shares a border with England to the south and is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the...
, filed virtually identical complaints against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio
Hamilton County, Ohio
As of 2000, there were 845,303 people, 346,790 households, and 212,582 families residing in the county. The population density was 2,075 people per square mile . There were 373,393 housing units at an average density of 917 per square mile...
, claiming negligence, fraud, breach of warranty, and misbranding in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
The United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , is a set of laws passed by Congress in 1938 giving authority to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to oversee the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics. A principal author of this law was Royal S. Copeland, a three-term U.S. Senator from...
(FDCA). The mother in each family had taken the drug Bendectin
Bendectin
Bendectin is a combination of pyridoxine and doxylamine prescribed to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy or morning sickness.-History:...
during pregnancy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy refers to the fertilization and development of one or more offspring, known as a fetus or embryo, in a woman's uterus. In a pregnancy, there can be multiple gestations, as in the case of twins or triplets...
which they claimed caused harm to their children including birth defects.
Issue
Do the federal district courts have original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a claim arises out of a federal statute that has not specifically granted a private right to a cause of actionCause of action
In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit...
?
Procedural History
The case was filed in state court and then removed to federal district court where it was found that Count IV (the misbranding count) of the complaint alleged a cause of action arising under federal law and the motion to remand was denied. It then granted petitioner's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniensForum non conveniens
Forum non conveniens is a common law legal doctrine whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties...
grounds. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Kentucky* Western District of Kentucky...
reversed claiming that the FDCA did not create or imply a private right to sue for injury resulting in no federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Rules
This case gives several different tests to determine when a case is covered under original jurisdiction for the federal courts. These test include:Holmes "Creation" Test:
The "vast majority" of cases that come within this grant of jurisdiction are covered by Justice Holmes
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932...
' statement that a "`suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.'" Id., at 8-9, quoting American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.
American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.
American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 , was an early United States Supreme Court case governing the scope of federal question jurisdiction.-Facts & Procedural History:...
, 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916).
Franchise Tax Board Test:
the court has also granted jurisdiction "where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turned on some construction of federal law" American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916)
Smith Test (Quoting from the dissent):
"The general rule is that where it appears from the bill or statement of the plaintiff that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that such federal claim is not merely colorable, and rests upon a reasonable foundation, the District Court has jurisdiction [478 U.S. 804, 820] under [the statute granting federal question jurisdiction]." 255 U.S., at 199 .
Holding
The United States Supreme CourtSupreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
affirmed the Sixth Circuit and ruled that there was no Federal Question Subject Matter jurisdiction.
Majority Opinion
The majority takes as its starting point the conclusion that Congress did not intend a private Federal cause of action for violations of the FDCA; in other words, private parties may not bring a suit solely on the basis of a violation of the Act. This was the Sixth Circuit's determination, and it was not disputed by any of the parties to the suit.The Court states that the significance of the lack of a Federal cause of action "cannot be overstated." The ruling relies heavily on the notion of respect for congressional intent. The Court interprets the fact that Congress did not create a cause of action to be conclusive evidence that Congress did not intend for claimed violations of the FDCA as elements of a state cause of action to be "substantial" enough to confer federal-question jurisdiction.
It was not entirely clear from the opinion whether lack of a private cause of action will always be dispositive in every case. The Court clarified the issue in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), saying that the absence of a right of action is relevant evidence of congressional intent, but does not necessarily decide the question in all cases.
It is important to note that Merrell Dow interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question jurisdictional statute, rather than Article III of the United States Constitution. In this way it is like the well-pleaded complaint rule of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that under the existing statutory scheme, federal question jurisdiction could not be predicated on a plaintiff's anticipation that the defendant would raise a federal statute as a...
: Congress may have the power to grant federal jurisdiction in this circumstance, but the Court read § 1331 as not expressing an intent to do so.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 478
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court