Dean's Address

As trial lawyers, we should fight to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. It is our mandate to do so. Chief Justice Earl Warren once observed that "[t]rial lawyers have always been and are today the men [and women] who preserve the basic principles of justice and keep alive those provisions of our Constitution and statutes which preserve and enlarge our freedoms."⁵⁵ And, against this growing threat of implied preemption, we must remain vigilant to preserve the powers of states to ensure our fundamental liberties.

We should encourage Congress to restore the balance of power. Congress should enact savings clauses to prevent further intrusion of federal regulation on the states. But, as we have seen, even explicit savings clauses are no guarantee that some in the federal judiciary will abstain from broad preemption of state laws.

This battle must be fought in our courts. And, we have not yet lost the war. Just last year, the Supreme courts issued two decisions that focused on the importance of federalism and states rights in our constitutional structure.⁵⁶ Early this year, the Supreme Court heard reargument in the Cippolone case the cigarette manufacturer case that Professor Tribe credits with the birth of this new breed of implied preemption .⁵⁷ Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his year‑end report on the federal judiciary, emphasized the need to reexamine the role of the federal courts and their impact on federalism⁵⁸ And, some federal courts have refused to find implied federal preemption in the absence of clear congressional intent.⁵⁹

As trial lawyers, we must convince our courts of the need to preserve the sovereignty of state government, of the need to assure remedies to injured citizens, of the need to preserve state laws designed to prevent harm to our citizens, and of the need to require tortfeasors to answer for the deaths and injuries they cause.

We cannot permit the rights and powers of state governments to be subjugated to an all ‑powerful federal government. State sovereignty must be independent and must remain respected by our courts. For, as Hamilton observed, "a dependent sovereignty is nonsense."⁶⁰

The Framers did not consider federalism an empty guarantee. Rather, a healthy balance of power between the states and the federal government reduces the risk of tyranny and abuse of power.⁶¹ In order to forma more perfect union, we must restore respect for the power of states to enact laws to protect and preserve the health, safety, and well‑being of our citizens.

ENDNOTES

1. Stevenson, "Politics and Morality," Saturday Review, Feb. 7, 1959 at 12.

2. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 115 L.Ed.2d 410, 421 (1991).

3. The Federalist No. 45 at 292 (J. Madison) (C. Rossiter ed. 196 1).

4.ribe, Federalism with Smoke and Mirrors, The Nation, June 7, 1986, at 790.

5 D. H. Montgomery, The Student's American History 230

       (2d ed. 1925).

6 U.S. CONST. Preamble.

7 See Marcotti, Federalism and the Rise of State Courts, ABA J.,April 1, 1987, at 63

8 Taffin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990).

9 The Federalist No. 45 at 292‑93.

10. Id.

11. See G. S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, at 536‑43 (1972)

12. Id.

13. U.S. CONST. amend. X

14 The Federalist No. 33 at 204 (A. Hamilton) (C. Rossiter ed. 196 1).

15 Marcotti, supra note 7, at 60.

16. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 115 L.Ed.2d at 423.

17 See generally Marcotti, supra note 7.

18 See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L.Ed. 579(1819).

19 . See United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); see also Van Alstyne,The Second Death of Federalism, 83 Mich.L. Rev. 1709,1710 (1985)

20 Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985) (overruling National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976)); see also Van Alstyne, supra note 19, at 1720‑24

21. Garcia, 469 U.S. at 560 (Powell, J., dissenting).

22. Tribe, supra note 4, at 788.

23. U.S. CONST. art. IV, cl. 2.

24.See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824).

25. See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 530‑31(1977).

26. Tribe, supra note 4, at 789.

27. See Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 726 (198 1).

28. Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. at 525.

29. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 144 (1963); see also Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 715 (1985) (health and safety concerns);Abbott v. American Cyanamid Co., 844 F.2d 1108, 1112 (4th Cir. 1988) (tort remedies).

30. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 47‑48 (1987) (interpretation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001‑1461 (1982))

31. Id.; see also Note, Blind Faith Conquers Bad Faitk‑ Only Congress Can Save Us After Pilot Life Insucrance Co. v. Dedeaux, 21 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1343 (1988).

32 Id.; 21 Loy L.A. L. Rev. at 1347.

33. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (establish­ment of federal common‑law government contractor defense through  interpretation of the discretionary function exception of the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)).

34. Id at 515 n.1 (Brennan, J., dissenting).

35. See, e.g., Wood v. General Motors Corp., 865 F.2d 395 (Ist Cir. 1988),  cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1065 (1990) (passive restraints); Kitts v.  General Motors Corp., 875 F.2d 787 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,494 U.S. 1065 (1990) (passive restraints); Taylor v. General Motors  Corp., 875 F.2d 816 (1 Ith Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1065 (1990) (air bags).

36 15 U.S.C. § 1397(c) (emphasis added).

37. Hurley v. Lederle Laboratories, 651 F. Supp. 993 (E.D. Tex. 1986).

38. Miller v. A.T&T Network Systems, 850 F.2d 543, 550 (9th Cir. 1988).

39. International Bd of Electrical Workers, AFI ‑CIO v. Hechler 481 U.S. 851, 862 (1987).

40. See Atkinson v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 838 F.2d 808, 813 (5th Cir. 1988).

41. See Hughes v. United Van Lines, Inc., 829 F.2d 1407, 1412‑13 (7th Cir 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 913 (1988).

42. See Fitzgerald v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 681 F. Supp. 404 (E.D. Mich. 1987).

43. Howard v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., slip opinion H‑91‑2731 (S.D. Tex. December 31, 1991).

44. Edell & Walters, The Doctrine of Implied Preemption in Products Liability Cases‑Federalism in the Balance,  54 Tenn.L. Rev. 603, 604‑05 (1987).

45. See Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142­43 (1963) ("Compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility

46. Silkwood v. Kerr‑McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 263 (1984) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).

47. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garman, 359 U.S. 236, 244 (1959).

48. Silkwood, 464 U.S. at 255.

49. Id. at 264 (Blackmun, J., dissenting); Tribe, supra note 4, at 788.

50. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 135, 162(1803).

51. Silkwood, 464 U.S. at 263 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).

52. Id. at 251.

53. See United Const. Workers v. Laburnum Const. Corp., 347 U.S. 656, 663‑64 (1954); Chambers v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 207 U.S. 142, 148(1907).

54. Tribe, supra note 4, at 790.

55. Quoted in Merhige, Professionalism, Credibility and Public Trust,Trial, October, 199 1, at 3 1.

56. Chisom. v. Roemer 111 S. Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348 (199 1); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 111 S. Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (199 1).

57. Tribe, supra note 4, at 788.

58. Rehnquist, 1991 Year‑End Report on the Federal Judiciary (Sup. Ct. pub. 1991) at 3.

59. See, e.g., Ferebee v. Chevron Chemical Co., 736 F.2d 1529, 1542 (D.C. Cir.) (no implied preemption in Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 .S.C. §§ 136‑136y), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1062 (1984); Cox v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 704 F. Supp. 85, 87 (E.D. Pa. 1989) (same); Abbott v. American Cyanamid Co., 844 F.2d 1108, 1113‑14 (4th Cir. 1988) (no implied preemption in DTP vaccine statutes), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 908 (1989); United Ass'n of Journeymen, etc. v. Bechtel Power Corp., 834 F.2d 884, 889 (10th Cir. 1987) (no implied preemption of invasion of privacy claims under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 30 1), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1055 (1988); Karl v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 880 F.2d 68, 76 (8th Cir. 1989) (no implied preemption in Federal Railroad Safety Act).

60. Hamilton to Robert Morris, April 30, 178 1, quoted in G. S. Wood, supra note 1, at 360.

61. Gregory, 115 L.Ed.2d at 422.