Cite as: 531 U. S. 341 (2001)
Stevens, J., concurring in judgment
Under the pre-emption analysis the Court offers today, however, parties injured by fraudulent representations to federal agencies would have no remedy even if recognizing such a remedy would have no adverse consequences upon the operation or integrity of the regulatory process. I do not believe the reasons advanced in the Court's opinion support the conclusion that Congress intended such a harsh result. Cf. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 251 (1984) (declining to infer that a federal statutory scheme that affords no alternative means of seeking redress pre-empted traditional state-law remedies). For that reason, although I concur in the Court's disposition of this case, I do not join its opinion.
355
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Last modified: October 4, 2007