[This post by guest author Dick Dean is a follow-on to the Drug & Device Law Blog’s discussions of purposes and objectives preemption in light of increasing skepticism about this aspect of preemption by some members of the Supreme Court.]

“To paraphrase Bexis, I would not have even read the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kansas v. Garcia, ____S.Ct.____, 2020 WL 1016170 (U.S. March 3, 2020), but for the fact that it tripped my automatic searches for cases citing Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 475 U.S. 282 (1986), and implied preemption. See opening paragraph of “Will Agency Deference Ruling Affect Preemption” July 15, 2019. And I was drafting this post about Garcia when Bexis struck again on March 12, pointing out the concurrences by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch noting their skepticism of purposes-and-objectives preemption and urging use of “logical contradiction” analysis in addition to the traditional purposes-and-objectives preemption argument. See Nov. 4, 2019 post. That is both true and important, but I was headed in another direction.”

Read the blog post here.