Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶146
Instead of relying on our precedent about FIFRA, the majority points to our decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U. S. 312 (2008). See ante, at 12–13. Riegel involved an entirely separate statute: the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA). Similar to FIFRA, the MDA established a premarket registration scheme for medical devices that included review and approval of the devices’ labeling by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 21 U. S. C. §360e(d)(1)(A). The MDA also has an express preemption provision similar to FIFRA’s. Specifically, the MDA preempts state requirements “with respect to a device intended for human use” that are “different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under [the MDA] to the device.” §360k(a). We held in Riegel that “[p]remarket approval . . . imposes ‘requirements’” specific to medical devices under the MDA. 552 U. S., at 322–323. So, the…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.