cipollone liggett group argued october decided june section federal cigarette labeling advertising act act required conspicuous label warning smoking health hazards placed every package cigarettes sold country act captioned preemption provided statement relating smoking health statement shall required cigarette package statement shall required advertising cigarettes packages labeled conformity section amended public health cigarette smoking act act specify requirement prohibition based smoking health shall imposed state law respect advertising promotion cigarettes packages lawfully labeled petitioner complaint action damages invoked district diversity jurisdiction alleged inter alia respondent cigarette manufacturers responsible death mother smoker since breached express warranties contained advertising failed warn consumers smoking hazards fraudulently misrepresented hazards consumers conspired deprive public medical scientific information smoking derogation duties created new jersey law district ultimately ruled among things claims preempted acts extent claims relied respondents advertising promotional public relations activities effective date act appeals affirmed point held judgment reversed part affirmed part case remanded reversed part affirmed part remanded justice stevens delivered opinion respect parts ii iii iv concluding act preempt damages actions superseded positive enactments state federal rulemaking bodies mandating particular warnings cigarette labels cigarette advertisements conclusion required section precise narrow prohibition required cautionary statement strong presumption preemption state police power regulations fact required warning effect foreclose additional obligations imposed state law fact general inherent conflict federal preemption state warning requirements continued vitality damages actions act stated purpose regulatory context establish passed prevent multiplicity pending diverse regulations word naturally refers positive enactments rather actions pp justice stevens joined chief justice justice white justice concluded parts vi act preempts certain petitioner fraudulent misrepresentation claims preempt claims claims based express warranty conspiracy pp broad language amended extends section preemptive reach beyond positive enactments include damages actions statutory phrase requirement prohibition suggests distinction positive enactments common law fact easily encompasses obligations take form rules phrase imposed state law clearly contemplates common law well statutes regulations mean however preempts claims statute indicate familiar subdivision common law preempted instead precise language must fairly light presumption preemption narrowly construed petitioner claims must examined determine whether fact preempted central inquiry case straightforward whether legal duty predicate damages action satisfies express terms giving terms fair narrow reading phrase within section limits universe claims preempted statute pp insofar claims either petitioner theories respondents negligent manner tested researched sold promoted advertised cigarettes failed provide adequate warnings smoking consequences require showing respondents advertising promotions included additional clearly stated warnings claims rely requirement prohibition respect advertising promotion within meaning preempted extent petitioner viable claim breach express warranties claim preempted general duty breach warranties arises state law manufacturer liability breach derives measured terms warranty remedy contractual commitment voluntarily undertaken regarded requirement imposed state law pp preempts prohibition well requirement supersedes petitioner first fraudulent misrepresentation theory predicated prohibition advertising promotional statements tending minimize smoking health hazards alleges respondents advertising neutralized effect federally mandated warning labels however claims based petitioner second fraudulent misrepresentation theory alleges intentional fraud false representation concealment material facts preempted concealment allegations insofar rely duty disclose material facts channels communication advertising promotions involve obligation respect activities within meaning moreover fraudulent misrepresentation claims arise respect advertising promotions predicated duty based smoking health rather general obligation duty deceive pp petitioner claim alleging conspiracy among respondents misrepresent conceal material facts concerning smoking health hazards preempted since predicate duty conspire commit fraud underlies claim prohibition based smoking health phrase properly construed justice blackmun joined justice kennedy justice souter concluded modified language act clearly exhibit necessary congressional intent preempt state common law damages actions therefore concurred judgment certain petitioners failure warn fraudulent misrepresentation claims well express warranty conspiracy claims preempted act justice scalia joined justice thomas concluded petitioner common law claims preempted act ordinary principles statutory construction therefore concurred judgment certain claims certain fraudulent misrepresentation claims preempted laurence tribe reargued cause petitioner marc edell argued cause petitioner original argument briefs alan darnell bartow farr iii reargued cause respondents briefs richard taranto briefs amici curiae urging reversal filed state minnesota et al hubert humphrey iii attorney general minnesota peter ackerberg special assistant attorney general attorneys general respective state follows james evans alabama grant woods arizona richard blumenthal connecticut larry echohawk idaho michael carpenter maine frankie sue del papa nevada robert del tufo new jersey tom udall new mexico nicholas spaeth north dakota lee fisher ohio kenneth eikenberry washington american cancer society et al alan morrison david vladeck cornish hitchcock american college chest physicians raymond cotton sherman poland american medical association kirk johnson association trial lawyers america jeffrey robert white michael maher national league cities et al richard ruda six former surgeons general et al stephen rosenfeld richard daynard trial lawyers public justice charles siegel arthur bryant briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed association national advertisers burt neuborne gilbert weil national association manufacturers diane zimmerman jan amundson quentin riegel product liability advisory council kenneth geller mark levy justice stevens delivered opinion except parts vi warning surgeon general determined cigarette smoking dangerous health federal statute enacted requires warning variation thereof appear conspicuous place every package cigarettes sold questions presented us case whether statute predecessor required less alarming label preempted petitioner claims respondent cigarette manufacturers august rose cipollone husband filed complaint invoking diversity jurisdiction federal district complaint alleged rose cipollone developed lung cancer smoked cigarettes manufactured sold three respondents death husband filed amended complaint trial also died son executor estates maintains action petitioner third amended complaint alleges several different bases recovery relying theories strict liability negligence express warranty intentional tort claims based new jersey law divide five categories design defect claims allege respondents cigarettes defective respondents failed use safer alternative design products social value product outweighed dangers created count app failure warn claims allege product defective result respondents failure provide adequate warnings health consequences cigarette smoking count app respondents negligent manner tested researched sold promoted advertised cigarettes count app express warranty claims allege respondents expressly warranted smoking cigarettes manufactured sold present significant health consequences count app fraudulent misrepresentation claims allege respondents willfully advertising attempted neutralize federally mandated warnin labels count app possessed ignored failed act upon medical scientific data indicating cigarettes hazardous health consumers count app finally conspiracy defraud claims allege respondents conspired deprive public medical scientific data one defenses respondents contended federal cigarette labeling advertising act enacted successor public health cigarette smoking act protected liability based conduct pretrial ruling district concluded federal statutes intended establish uniform warning prevail throughout country protect cigarette manufacturers subjected varying requirements state state cipollone liggett group statutes preempt actions accordingly granted motion strike preemption defense entirely appeals accepted interlocutory appeal pursuant reversed cipollone liggett group rejected respondents contention federal acts expressly preempted actions accepted contention actions conflict federal law relying statement purpose statutes concluded congress carefully drawn balance purposes warning public hazards cigarette smoking protecting interests national economy upset damages actions based noncompliance warning advertisement promotion obligations prescribed federal act accordingly held act state law damage actions relating smoking health challenge either adequacy warning cigarette packages propriety party actions respect advertising promotion cigarettes success state law damage claim necessarily depends assertion party bore duty provide warning consumers addition warning congress required cigarette packages claims preempted conflicting act ibid omitted denied petition certiorari case returned district trial complying appeals mandate district held express warranty claims barred extent relied respondents advertising promotional public relations activities january effective date act also ruled design defect claims preempted federal law claims barred grounds following extensive discovery trial jury answered series special interrogatories awarded damages rose cipollone husband brief rejected fraudulent misrepresentation conspiracy claims found respondent liggett breached duty warn express warranties found however rose cipollone voluntarily unreasonably encounter ed known danger smoking cigarettes responsibility injuries attributable see summarizing jury findings reason damages awarded estate however jury awarded damages compensate husband losses caused respondents breach express warranty final judgment appeals affirmed district preemption rulings remanded new trial several issues relevant decision granted petition certiorari consider preemptive effect federal statutes ii although physicians suspected link smoking illness centuries first medical studies connection appear see dept health human services report surgeon general reducing health consequences smoking years progress ensuing decades saw wide range epidemiologic laboratory studies health hazards smoking thus time surgeon general convened advisory committee examine issue publications examining relationship smoking health advisory committee issued report stated central conclusion cigarette smoking health hazard sufficient importance warrant appropriate remedial action dept health education welfare surgeon general advisory committee smoking health relying part report federal trade commission ftc long regulated unfair deceptive advertising practices cigarette industry promulgated new trade regulation rule rule take effect january established violation federal trade commission act fail disclose clearly prominently advertising every pack box carton container cigarettes cigarette smoking dangerous health may cause death cancer diseases several also moved regulate advertising labeling cigarettes see ch see also statement moss upon congressional request ftc postponed enforcement new regulation six months july congress enacted federal cigarette labeling advertising act act act act effectively adopted half ftc regulation act mandated warnings cigarette packages barred requirement warnings cigarette advertising section act declares statute two purposes adequately informing public cigarette smoking may hazardous health protecting national economy burden imposed diverse nonuniform confusing cigarette labeling advertising regulations furtherance first purpose act made unlawful sell distribute cigarettes unless package bore conspicuous label stating caution cigarette smoking may hazardous health furtherance second purpose captioned preemption provided part statement relating smoking health statement required section act shall required cigarette package statement relating smoking health shall required advertising cigarettes packages labeled conformity provisions act termination date approached federal authorities prepared issue regulations cigarette advertising ftc announced reinstitution proceedings concerning warning requirement cigarette advertisements federal communications commission fcc announced consider proposed rule ban broadcast cigarette commercials radio television stations state authorities also prepared take actions regulating cigarette advertisements context congress enacted public health cigarette smoking act act act amended act several ways first act strengthened warning label part requiring statement cigarette smoking dangerous rather may hazardous second act banned cigarette advertising medium electronic communication subject fcc jurisdiction third related act modified preemption provision replacing original provision reads requirement prohibition based smoking health shall imposed state law respect advertising promotion cigarettes packages labeled conformity provisions act iii article vi constitution provides laws shall law land thing constitution laws state contrary notwithstanding art vi cl thus since decision maryland wheat settled state law conflicts federal law without effect maryland louisiana consideration issues arising supremacy clause start assumption historic police powers superseded federal act unless clear manifest purpose congress rice santa fe elevator accordingly purpose congress ultimate touchstone preemption analysis malone white motor quoting retail clerks schermerhorn congress intent may explicitly stated statute language implicitly contained structure purpose jones rath packing absence express congressional command state law preempted law actually conflicts federal law see pacific gas elec state energy resources conservation development federal law thoroughly occupies legislative field make reasonable inference congress left room supplement fidelity fed sav loan assn de la cuesta quoting rice santa fe elevator appeals persuaded preemption provision act encompassed state claims also persuaded labeling obligation imposed acts revealed congressional intent exert exclusive federal control every aspect relationship cigarettes health nevertheless reading statute whole light statement purpose considering potential regulatory effect state actions federal interest uniformity appeals concluded congress impliedly preempted petitioner claims challenging adequacy warnings labels advertising propriety respondents advertising promotional activities opinion preemptive scope act act governed entirely express language act congress considered issue preemption included enacted legislation provision explicitly addressing issue provision provides reliable indicium congressional intent respect state authority malone white motor need infer congressional intent preempt state laws substantive provisions legislation california federal savings loan assn guerra opinion marshall reasoning variant familiar principle expression unius est exclusio alterius congress enactment provision defining preemptive reach statute implies matters beyond reach preempted case provisions acts offer cause look beyond act therefore need identify domain expressly preempted sections provisions differ substantially consider turn iv preemption provision regarding advertising congress spoke precisely narrowly statement relating smoking health shall required advertising properly labeled cigarettes section used phrase statement relating smoking health regard cigarette labeling made clear phrase referred sort warning provided set forth verbatim warning congress determined appropriate thus face provisions merely prohibited state federal rulemaking bodies mandating particular cautionary statements cigarette labels cigarette advertisements beyond precise words provisions reading appropriate several reasons first discussed must construe provisions light presumption preemption state police power regulations presumption reinforces appropriateness narrow reading second warning required effect foreclose additional obligations imposed state law congress requires particular warning label automatically preempt regulatory field see mcdermott wisconsin third general inherent conflict federal preemption state warning requirements continued vitality state damages actions example comprehensive smokeless tobacco health education act congress expressly preempted state local imposition statement relating use smokeless tobacco products health time preserved damages actions based products see considerations indicate best read superseded positive enactments legislatures administrative agencies mandate particular warning labels reading comports act statement purpose expressed intent avoid diverse nonuniform confusing cigarette labeling advertising regulations respect relationship smoking health read backdrop regulatory activity undertaken state legislatures federal agencies response surgeon general report term regulation naturally refers positive enactments bodies damages actions regulatory context act also supports reading noted warning requirement promulgated ftc requirements consideration catalyst passage act regulatory actions animated passage reflected congress efforts prevent multiplicity state local regulations pertaining labeling cigarette packages preemp federal state local authorities requiring statement relating smoking health advertising cigarettes emphasis supplied reasons conclude act preempted state federal rulemaking bodies mandating particular cautionary statements preempt damages actions compared predecessor act plain language preemption provision act much broader first later act bars simply statement rather requirement prohibition imposed state law second later act reaches beyond statements advertising obligations respect advertising promotion cigarettes notwithstanding substantial differences language petitioner respondents contend act materially alter preemptive scope federal law primary support contention sentence committee report amendment clarified version reject parties reading incompatible language origins amendments noted another context nferences legislative history rest slender reed moreover views subsequent congress form hazardous basis inferring intent earlier one price act worked substantial changes law rewriting label warning banning broadcast advertising allowing ftc regulate print advertising context revisions light substantial changes wording accept parties claim act alter reach petitioner next contends however broadened act preempt actions offers two theories forlimiting reach amended first argues damages actions impose requirement prohibition congress intended trump state statute injunction executive pronouncement disagree analysis odds plain words act general understanding damages actions phrase requirement prohibition sweeps broadly suggests distinction positive enactments common law contrary words easily encompass obligations take form rules noted another context state regulation effectively exerted award damages form preventive relief obligation pay compensation indeed designed potent method governing conduct controlling policy san diego building trades council garmon although portions legislative history act suggest congress primarily concerned positive enactments localities see language act plainly reaches beyond enactments must give effect plain language unless good reason believe congress intended language restrictive meaning shaw delta air lines case good reason believe congress meant less said indeed light narrowness act good reason believe congress meant precisely said amending act moreover damages actions sort raised petitioner premised existence legal duty difficult say actions impose requirements prohibitions see prosser law torts ed black law dictionary ed defining tort always involving violation duty owing plaintiff way version differs predecessor whereas common law normally require vendor use specific statement packages advertisements essence common law enforce duties either affirmative requirements negative prohibitions therefore reject petitioner argument phrase requirement prohibition limits act preemptive scope positive enactments legislatures agencies petitioner second argument excluding rules reach hinges phrase imposed state law argument fails well least since erie tompkins recognized phrase state law include common law well statutes regulations indeed last term stated phrase law including state municipal law admit distinction positive enactments common law rules liability norfolk western train dispatchers although presumption preemption might give good reason construe phrase state law preemption provision narrowly identical phrase another context case construction appropriate explained version precise narrow face obviously broader language version extended section preemptive reach moreover version act passed senate preempted state statute regulation respect advertising promotion conference committee replaced language state law respect advertising promotion situation preemption state law fairly limited positive enactments preemptive scope limited positive enactments mean section preempts claims example respondents concede generally preempt state law obligations avoid marketing cigarettes manufacturing defects use demonstrably safer alternative design cigarettes purposes common law piece statute indicate familiar subdivision claims preempted therefore follow petitioner passing suggestion preempts liability omissions acts preempts liability unintentional torts intentional torts instead must fairly light strong presumption preemption narrowly construe precise language must look petitioner claims determine whether fact preempted central inquiry case straightforward ask whether legal duty predicate damages action constitutes requirement prohibition based smoking health imposed state law respect advertising promotion giving clause fair narrow reading discussed phrase within clause limits universe claims preempted statute consider category damages actions turn express opinion whether actions viable claims matter state law assume arguendo failure warn establish liability failure warn petitioner must show warning necessary make product reasonably safe suitable fit intended use respondents failed provide warning failure proximate cause petitioner injury tr case petitioner offered two closely related theories concerning failure warn first respondents negligent manner tested researched sold promoted advertised cigarettes second respondents failed provide adequate warnings health consequences cigarette smoking app petitioner claims preempted extent rely requirement prohibition respect advertising promotion thus insofar claims either theory require showing respondents advertising promotions included additional clearly stated warnings claims preempted act however preempt petitioner claims rely solely respondents testing research practices actions unrelated advertising promotion breach express warranty petitioner claim breach express warranty arises west provides affirmation fact promise made seller buyer relates goods becomes part basis bargain creates express warranty goods shall conform affirmation promise manufacturer liability breach express warranty derives measured terms warranty accordingly requirement imposed express warranty claim imposed state law rather imposed warrantor example manufacturer expressly promised pay smoker medical bills contracted emphysema duty honor promise fairly said imposed state law rather best understood undertaken manufacturer general duty breach warranties arises state law particular requirement based smoking health respect advertising promotion cigarettes express warranty claim arises manufacturer statements advertisements short remedy contractual commitment voluntarily undertaken regarded requirement imposed state law within meaning terms warranty may set forth advertisements rather separate documents irrelevant preemption issue though possibly issue whether alleged warranty valid enforceable although breach warranty claim made respect advertising rest duty imposed state law accordingly extent petitioner viable claim breach express warranties made respondents claim preempted act fraudulent misrepresentation petitioner alleges two theories fraudulent misrepresentation first petitioner alleges respondents advertising neutralized effect federally mandated warning labels claim predicated prohibition statements advertising promotional materials tend minimize health hazards associated smoking prohibition however merely converse requirement warnings included advertising promotional materials section act preempts requirements prohibitions therefore supersedes petitioner first fraudulent misrepresentation theory regulators long recognized relationship prohibitions advertising downplays dangers smoking requirements warnings advertisements example ftc promulgating initial trade regulation rule criticized advertising associated cigarette smoking positive attributes contentment glamour romance youth happiness time suggesting smoking activity least consistent physical health commission concluded avoid giving false impression smoking innocuous cigarette manufacturer represents alleged pleasures satisfactions cigarette smoking advertising must also disclose serious risks life smoking involves fed reg petitioner second theory construed district alleges intentional fraud misrepresentation false representation material fact conceal ment material fact tr predicate claim duty make false statements material fact conceal facts preemption analysis requires us determine whether duty sort requirement prohibition proscribed section preempts imposition obligations respect advertising promotion cigarettes petitioner claims respondents concealed material facts therefore preempted insofar claims rely duty disclose facts channels communication advertising promotion thus example state law obliged respondents disclose material facts smoking health administrative agency preempt state based failure fulfill obligation moreover petitioner fraudulent misrepresentation claims arise respect advertising promotions notably claims based allegedly false statements material fact made advertisements preempted claims predicated duty based smoking health rather general obligation duty deceive understanding fraud intentional misstatement appropriate several reasons first act congress offered sign wished insulate cigarette manufacturers longstanding rules governing fraud contrary acts explicitly reserved ftc authority identify punish deceptive advertising practices authority ftc long exercised continues exercise see act act see also nn supra indicates congress intended phrase relating smoking health essentially unchanged act construed narrowly proscribe regulation deceptive advertising moreover reading based smoking health wholly consistent purposes act prohibitions false statements material fact create diverse nonuniform confusing standards unlike obligations concerning warning necessary render product reasonably safe proscriptions intentional fraud rely single uniform standard falsity thus conclude phrase based smoking health fairly narrowly construed encompass general duty make fraudulent statements accordingly petitioner claim based allegedly fraudulent statements made respondents advertisements preempted act conspiracy misrepresent conceal material facts petitioner final claim alleges conspiracy among respondents misrepresent conceal material facts concerning health hazards smoking predicate duty underlying claim duty conspire commit fraud reasons stated analysis petitioner intentional fraud claim duty preempted prohibition based smoking health phrase properly construed accordingly conclude act preempt petitioner conspiracy claim vi summarize holding act preempt damages actions act preempts petitioner claims based failure warn neutralization federally mandated warnings extent claims rely omissions inclusions respondents advertising promotions act preempt petitioner claims based express warranty intentional fraud misrepresentation conspiracy judgment appeals accordingly reversed part affirmed part case remanded proceedings consistent opinion ordered footnotes appeals analysis initially set forth cipollone liggett group federal courts adopted similar analysis see pennington vistron roysdon reynolds tobacco stephen american brands palmer liggett group dewey reynolds tobacco holding cigarette act plaintiff misrepresentation claims see also forster reynolds tobacco holding plaintiffs claim strict liability unsafe design claims misrepresentation breach express warranty also explained however existence present federally mandated warning prevent individual claiming risks smoking greater warning indicates therefore warning inadequate recognizes extremely difficult plaintiff prove present warning inadequate inform dangers whatever may however difficulty proof preclude opportunity heard affording opportunity undermine purposes act policy congress purpose chapter establish comprehensive federal program deal cigarette labeling advertising respect relationship smoking health whereby public may adequately informed cigarette smoking may hazardous health inclusion warning effect package cigarettes commerce national economy may protected maximum extent consistent declared policy impeded diverse nonuniform confusing cigarette labeling advertising regulations respect relationship smoking health presented question concerning claims see brown williamson tobacco liggett myers tobacco philip morris reynolds tobacco london tobacco stat amended however act expressly preserved authority federal trade commission respect unfair deceptive acts practices advertising cigarettes stat see supra example california state senate passed total ban print electronic cigarette advertisements california senate votes ban cigarette advertising washington post june stat amended express preemption analysis distinguish preemption provisions acts relied solely latter apparently believing provision least broad provision ultimate ruling petitioner claims impliedly preempted effective january reflects fact act alter statement purpose critical implied preemption analysis stat codified cf banzhaf fcc app cert denied holding act preempt fcc fairness policy applied cigarette advertising justice scalia takes issue narrow reading phrase statement criticism however relies solely interpretation two words artificially severed textual legislative context demonstrated phrase statement refers similar phrase refers turn sets forth particular statement context combined regulatory setting congress acted establishes narrow reading phrase statement appropriate interpretation act appears consistent respondents contemporaneous understanding act although respondents participated great deal litigation relating cigarette use beginning appears case first raised preemption defense see brief petitioner brief respondents noted act statement purpose suggested congress concerned primarily regulations positive enactments rather damages actions although act amend persuaded retention portion act sufficient basis rejecting plain meaning broad language congress added brief petitioner brief respondents petitioner makes much fact congress expressly include common law within preemptive reach statutes see respondents make much fact congress include saving clause preserving claims statutes see analysis omissions make perfect sense congress neither preempting saving common law whole simply preempting particular claims saving others thus express warranty claims said sound contract rather tort compare black law dictionary ed defining tort must always violation duty generally duty must arise operation law mere agreement parties defining contract agreement two persons creates obligation justice scalia contends general duty honor express warranties arises state law every express warranty obligation requirement imposed state law therefore act preempts petitioner express warranty claim justice scalia might correct act preempted liability imposed state law suggests post instead act expressly preempts requirement prohibition imposed state law contract legal force apart state law acknowledges binding character norfolk western train dispatchers mean every contractual provision imposed state law contrary common understanding dictates contractual requirement although enforceable state law imposed state rather imposed contracting party upon district stated claim consists following elements material misrepresentation fact false statement concealment knowledge falsity intent misrepresentation relied upon justifiable reliance resultant damage senate report emphasized preemption regulation prohibition respect cigarette advertising narrowly phrased preempt state action based smoking health way affect power state respect taxation sale cigarettes minors prohibition smoking public buildings similar police regulations emphasis supplied justice blackmun justice scalia challenge level generality employed analysis justice blackmun contends matter consistency construe claims based smoking health rather based broader duty inform consumers known risks post justice scalia contends matter consistency construe fraudulent misrepresentation claims based general duty deceive rather based smoking health admittedly positions conceptual attraction however ambition theoretical elegance rather fair understanding congressional purpose analyze claims highest level generality justice blackmun us render amendments almost meaningless pay little respect congress substantial reworking act hand analyze fraud claims lowest level generality justice scalia us conflict background presumption legislative history plainly expresses intent preserve police regulations see supra district described evidence conspiracy follows evidence presented petitioner particularly contained documents respondents indicates industry respondents part entered sophisticated conspiracy conspiracy organized refute undermine neutralize information coming scientific medical community today craft compromise position concerning extent federal law preempts persons injured cigarette manufacturers unlawful conduct bringing state common law damages claims manufacturers however find divided holding respect original amended versions federal statute entirely unsatisfactory precedents allow us infer scope preemption beyond clearly mandated congress language view neither version federal legislation issue provides kind unambiguous evidence congressional intent necessary displace state common law damages claims therefore join parts ii iii iv opinion dissent parts vi agree exposition part iii opinion underlying principles preemption law particular recognition preemptive scope federal cigarette labeling advertising act act act public health cigarette smoking act act governed entirely express language statutes preemption provisions ante congress included legislation specific provision addressing indeed entitled preemption task one statutory interpretation identify domain expressly preempted provision ibid interpreting must begin language employed congress assumption ordinary meaning language accurately expresses legislative purpose fmc holliday quoting park fly dollar park fly see california coastal granite rock california federal savings loan assn guerra opinion marshall resort principles implied preemption inquiring whether congress occupied particular field intent supplant state law whether state law actually conflicts federal law see english general electric congress silent respect agree find state common law damages claims issue case preempted federal law absence clear unambiguous evidence congress intended result see ante describes reluctance infer preemption ambiguous cases presumption preemption state police power regulations ante although many cases invoked presumption displacement state law involved implied preemption see florida lime avocado growers paul rice santa fe elevator often speaks general terms without reference nature preemption issue given statutory scheme see maryland louisiana consideration supremacy clause starts basic assumption congress intend displace state law avocado growers conclude congress legislated ouster state statute absence unambiguous congressional mandate effect bethlehem steel new york state labor relations indulgence construction favor congress speak drastic clarity whenever chooses assure full federal authority completely displacing opinion frankfurter principles federalism respect state sovereignty underlie reluctance find preemption congress spoken directly issue apply equal force congress spoken though ambiguously cases question whether congress intended preempt state regulation extent absent unambiguous evidence infer scope preemption beyond clearly mandated congress language therefore agree unwillingness conclude state common law damages claims issue case preempted unless result clear manifest purpose congress ante quoting rice santa fe elevator also agree application foregoing principles part iv opinion concludes none petitioner common law damages claims preempted act view words act statement relating smoking health shall required advertising cigarettes packages labeled conformity provisions act bear one meaning prohibited merely mandating particular cautionary statements cigarette advertisements ante recognizes interpretation comports congress stated purpose avoiding diverse nonuniform confusing cigarette labeling advertising regulations relating smoking health ante quoting narrow scope federal preemption thus apparent statutory text correspondingly impossible divine clear manifest purpose part congress preempt common law damages actions ii agreement ceases point given proper analytical focus scope express preemption provisions issue acknowledgment act preempt state common law damages claims find plurality conclusion act preempts least common law damages claims little short baffling view modified language requirement prohibition based smoking health shall imposed state law respect advertising promotion cigarettes packages labeled conformity provisions act clearly manifestly exhibits intent preempt state common law damages actions language predecessor act nonetheless plurality reaches different conclusion reasoning warrants scrutiny plurality premises preemption ruling terms substantial changes wrought congress ante notably rewording provision preempt requirement prohibition opposed merely statement imposed state law initial matter disagree plurality phrase state law appropriate case encompass common law well positive enactments statutes regulations see ante disagree however plurality conclusion state law used represents reference congress intention selecting phrase understood without considering narrow range actions requirement prohibition congress specifically described imposed state law see morton construe statutory phrases isolation read statutes whole thus words question must read light immediately following phrase omitted jarecki searle maxim noscitur sociis word known company keeps inescapable rule often wisely applied word capable many meanings order avoid giving unintended breadth acts congress see also norfolk western train dispatchers stevens dissenting declining read phrase law including state municipal law broadly although plurality flatly phrase requirement prohibition sweeps broadly easily encompass es obligations take form rules ante words reality far unambiguous said clearly evidence congressional mandate preempt state common law damages actions dictionary definitions terms suggest anything specific actions mandated disallowed formal governing authority see webster third new international dictionary defining require ask authoritatively imperatively claim right authority demand necessary essential general principles order comply satisfy regulation black law dictionary ed defining prohibition ct law prohibiting something interdiction important question whether common law damages actions exert regulatory effect manufacturers analogous positive enactments assumption crucial plurality conclusion phrase requirement prohibition encompasses actions significantly complicated plurality brief quotation san diego building trades council garmon see ante suggest effect tort law manufacturer behavior necessarily indirect although award damages nature attaches additional consequences manufacturer continued unlawful conduct particular course action adoption new warning label required manufacturer found liable example claim may respond number ways may decide accept damages awards cost business alter behavior way see goodyear atomic miller corporation may choose disregard state safety regulations simply pay additional damages award employee injured result safety violation contrast may choose avoid future awards dispensing warnings variety alternative mechanisms package inserts public service advertisements general educational programs level choice defendant retains shaping behavior distinguishes indirect regulatory effect common law positive enactments statutes administrative regulations see dewey reynolds tobacco garner cigarette dependency civil liability modest proposal moreover tort law entirely separate function compensating victims sets apart direct forms regulation see ferebee chevron chemical app cert denied despite earlier acknowledgment consistent foregoing conception damages actions general inherent conflict federal preemption state warning requirements continued vitality state common law damages actions ante plurality apparently finds garmon statement regulation effectively exerted award damages form preventive relief sufficient authority warrant extinguishing actions issue case see ante persuaded previously distinguished garmon declined several recent occasions find regulatory effects state tort law direct substantial enough warrant goodyear atomic miller example distinguished purposes analysis direct state regulation safety matters incidental regulatory effects damages awarded pursuant state workers compensation law relying part earlier decision silkwood stated congress may reasonably determine incidental regulatory pressure acceptable whereas direct regulatory authority even recently declined english general electric find state common law damages claims emotional distress preempted federal nuclear energy law concluded although awards former employees emotional distress attach additional consequences retaliatory employer conduct lead employers alter underlying conditions employees complaining effect neither direct substantial enough warrant preemption light recognized distinction jurisprudence direct state regulation indirect regulatory effects common law damages actions said damages claims clearly unambiguously requirements prohibitions imposed state law plain language act modified preemption provision simply bear broad interpretation plurality impart text revised fail clearly manifestly require preemption state common law damages actions suggestion legislative history congress intended expand scope preemption provision amended statute plurality acknowledges evidence congress perceived changes mere clarifi cation existing narrow preemption provision ante quoting hereinafter dismisses statements legislative intent views subsequent congress ante quoting price plurality wrong factual matter statements congress amended contemporaneous subsequent enactment revised preemption provision legal matter well accords great weight amending congress interpretation underlying statute see red lion broadcasting fcc viewing revisions generally nonsubstantive nature makes sense replacing word statement slightly broader term requirement adding word prohibition ensure state negative mandate banning cigarette advertising already forbidden positive mandate mandating particular cautionary statements congress sought clarif existing precautions confusing nonuniform state laws regulations acknowledges evidence congress changes preemption provision nonsubstantive plurality admits portions legislative history act suggest congress primarily concerned positive enactments localities ante indeed relevant senate report explains revised preemption provision intended include action state statute administrative actions local ordinances regulations political subdivisions state list remarkable absence reference common law damages actions cf erisa statute defines state laws used preemption provision mean laws decisions rules regulations state action effect law emphasis added plurality dismisses statement simple observation language act plainly reaches beyond positive enactments ante yet discussed words requirement prohibition plainly extend common law damages actions plurality errs placing much weight fragile textual hook plurality acknowledges time congress amended preemption provision made effort alter statement purpose contained act ante although plurality relegates fact continued vitality significant particularly light reliance statement purpose earlier conclusion act preempt state common law damages actions see ante concluding congress expressed intent avoid diverse nonuniform confusing regulations naturally refers positive enactments state legislatures federal agencies damages actions finally absolutely suggestion legislative history congress intended leave plaintiffs injured result cigarette manufacturers unlawful conduct without alternative remedies yet regrettable effect ruling today many state common law damages claims preempted past hesitated find preemption federal law provides comparable remedy see rabin sociolegal history tobacco tort litigation noting rather strong tradition federal deference competing state interests compensating injury victims indeed silkwood took note congress failure provide federal remedy injured persons stated difficult believe congress without comment remove means judicial recourse injured illegal conduct see also blackmun dissenting inconceivable congress intended leave victims remedy unlike federal statutes congress eased bite preemption establishing comprehensive civil enforcement schemes see mcclendon discussing erisa cigarette labeling advertising act barren alternative remedies act merely empowers federal trade commission regulate unfair deceptive advertising practices establishes minimal criminal penalties misdemeanor fine exceed violations act provisions authorizes federal courts upon government application enjoin violations act unlike plurality unwilling believe congress without mention state common law damages actions intention dramatically expand scope federal preemption eliminated means judicial recourse injured cigarette manufacturers unlawful conduct thus plain language act fail clearly require preemption petitioner state common law damages claims suggestion legislative history congress intended expand scope preemption provision drastic manner plurality attributes obligation infer preemption congress intent clear manifest mandates conclusion state common law damages actions preempted act iii stepping back specifics plurality preemption analysis view result plurality ultimately reaches disturbed notwithstanding ready acknowledgment purpose congress ultimate touchstone preemption analysis ante quoting malone white motor plurality proceeds create crazy quilt among common law claims implicated case reaches result congress surely intended obvious problem plurality analysis frequent shift level generality examines individual claims example plurality fraudulent misrepresentation claims least involving false statements material fact advertisements predicated duty based smoking health rather general obligation duty deceive therefore preempted act ante yet claims easily described based general obligation inform consumers known risks implicitly found based smoking health declared preempted see ante plurality goes hold express warranty claims preempted duty issue undertaken manufacturer imposed state law ante yet plurality must acknowledge general duty breach warranties arises state law ibid emphasis added absent state decision penalize behavior creation common law damages action warranty claim exist short perceive principled basis many plurality asserted distinctions among claims believe congress intended create hodgepodge allowed disallowed claims amended preemption provision although plurality acknowledges fails indicate familiar subdivision claims preempted ante ignores simplest obvious explanation statutory silence congress never intended displace state damages claims much less cull manner plurality today speculate difficulty lower courts encounter attempting implement today decision iv finding federal preemption certain state common law damages claims decision today eliminates critical component traditional ability protect health safety citizens yet radical readjustment relations warranted precedents clear evidence congress intended result believe neither version federal cigarette labeling advertising act evidences clear congressional intent preempt state common law damages actions respectfully dissent parts vi justice stevens opinion construes congressional inroads state power narrowly contexts well example repeatedly held order waive state sovereign immunity suit federal congress must make intention unmistakably clear language statute atascadero state hospital scanlon dellmuth muth congress fact expressly allowed common law damages actions survive preempting direct forms state regulation see comprehensive smokeless tobacco health education act stat occupational safety health act stat et construed cade national solid wastes management ante explained garmon state common law damages award found preempted national labor relations act involved special presumption federal preemption relating primary jurisdiction national labor relations board see brown hotel employees english general electric silkwood declined find state punitive damages awards preempted federal nuclear safety laws explaining may award damages based state law negligence strict liability regulatory sense nuclear plant threatened damages liability conform state standards regulatory consequence something congress quite willing accept although noted decision silkwood based substantial part affirmative evidence legislative history suggesting congress intend include common law damages remedies within preempted field see english general electric silkwood discussion regulatory effects common law instructive relied subsequent cases see goodyear one reported case construing scope preemption act banzhaf fcc case congress aware see appeals district columbia circuit used term affirmative requirements describe ban statement app cert denied sub nom tobacco institute fcc small step affirmative requirement converse negative requirement prohibition single explanatory phrase requirement prohibition every appeals consider question including third circuit earlier opinion case similarly concluded state common law damages claims expressly preempted act see cipollone liggett group cert denied pennington vistron roysdon reynolds tobacco palmer liggett group see also dewey reynolds tobacco forster reynolds tobacco justice scalia justice thomas joins concurring judgment part dissenting part today decision announces face extraordinary unprecedented principle federal statutory construction express preemption provisions must construed narrowly light presumption preemption state police power regulations ante life span new rule may blessedly brief inasmuch opinion gives birth part proceeds ignore part adjudging least common law tort claims issue preempted view merit newly crafted doctrine narrow construction supremacy clause art vi cl job interpret congress decrees preemption neither narrowly broadly accordance apparent meaning job present case find act preemption petitioner claims act find preemption petitioner claims complete threshold description law preemption accurate enough though generally assum historic police powers superseded federal act unless clear manifest purpose congress ante quoting rice santa fe elevator traditionally thought require express statutory text state law actual conflict federal law see pacific gas elec state energy resources conservation development stands obstacle accomplishment execution full purposes objectives congress hines davidowitz even nature congress regulation scope convinces us congress left room supplement rice supra difficulty declaring state law must yield ultimate question case framed inquiry one congress intent revealed text structure purposes subject matter statutes involved see english general electric shaw delta air lines goes beyond traditional principles however announce two new ones first says express preemption provisions must given narrowest possible construction view consequence assumption absent convincing evidence statutory intent preempt historic police powers superseded see ante seems assumption dissolves conclusive evidence intent preempt express words statute remaining question scope preemption meant thereupon think responsibility apply text ordinary principles statutory construction precisely express preemption cases done less month ago morales trans world airlines held airline deregulation act provision preempting state laws relating airline rates routes services app broad enough reach state fare advertising regulations despite availability plausible limiting constructions made mention rule rule narrow construction applied usual assumption ordinary meaning statutory language accurately expresses legislative purpose morales supra quoting fmc holliday emphasis added last term norfolk western train dispatchers interpreted express provision broadly despite fact canon statutory construction supported narrower reading see stevens dissenting said word presumption ante applied construction text light willingness find preemption absence explicit statement preemptive intent notion explicit statements exist subject rule somewhat odd sure jurisprudence abounds rules plain statement clear statement narrow construction designed variously ensure absent unambiguous evidence congress intent extraordinary constitutional powers invoked important constitutional protections eliminated seemingly inequitable doctrines applied see mitchell waivers federal sovereign immunity must unequivocally expressed michigan dept state police clear statement required compel entertain damages suits state courts atascadero state hospital scanlon abrogation state sovereign immunity must expressed unmistakable language none rules exists alongside doctrine whereby result prophylactically protected careless explicit provision achieved sheer implication express statement intent novel regime constructs today results seem odder still one takes account second new rule announces congress considered issue preemption included enacted legislation provision explicitly addressing issue need identify domain expressly preempted provision ante express preemption provision words doctrines implied preemption eliminated proposition may correct insofar implied field preemption concerned existence express preemption provision tends contradict inference congress intended occupy field broader statute express language defines however regard implied conflict preemption state regulation actually conflicts federal law state regulation stands obstacle accomplishment execution congress purposes hines supra second new rule works mischief taken seriously mean example federal consumer protection law provided state agency shall assert jurisdiction state law workplace safety issue respect federal standard effect state agency operating law dealing subject workplace safety consumer protection impose requirements entirely contrary federal law forbidding example use certain safety equipment federal law requires knowledge never expressed rule prior cases inconsistent see jones rath packing second novelty combined first result extraordinary statute says anything preemption must say everything must great exactitude ambiguity concerning scope read favor preserving state power law surely sporting congresses dare say anything preemption proper rule construction express preemption provisions seems one customary statutory provisions general language given ordinary meaning fmc holliday supra shaw delta air lines suggests preemption provision intended sweep broadly construction must sweep broadly well see bespeaks narrow scope preemption must judgment see fort halifax packing coyne applying niggardly rule construction finds surprisingly none petitioner claims common law failure warn breach express warranty intentional fraud misrepresentation preempted act save claims reaches result act think error applying ordinary principles statutory construction believe petitioner claims preempted act claims act ii much plurality says part opinion agree language act plainly reaches beyond positive enactments ante general tort law duties petitioner invokes cigarette companies general matter impose requirement prohibition within meaning act ibid phrase state law used provision embraces state common law ante take issue plurality however application general principles present case finding produce partial preemption petitioner common law claims rests upon three misperceptions shall discuss turn headings indicating erroneously permitted claims apply claims extent petitioner claims premised specifically respondents failure period act force include advertising statement relating smoking health find claims less similar claims preempted addition reasons shall later explain see part iii infra find preemption even claims based respondents failure make statements consumers outside advertising however since act enjoins laws require statement cigarette advertising petitioner claims accepted penalize statements voluntarily made cigarette companies must deemed survive appear include petitioner intentional fraud misrepresentation claims concur judgment respect claims liability attaches particular promise representation attaches law making voluntary promise representation less commission intentional tort background law act occurs act supplies element legal obligation see home building loan assn blaisdell west providing enforcement express warranties course new jersey law express warranty attaches legal consequences cigarette manufacturer voluntary conduct making warranty narrow sense suppose warranty obligation said undertaken manufacturer logic also said duty warn dangers cigarettes undertaken voluntarily manufacturers choose sell new jersey generally legal duty imposed volitional behavior one imposed law plurality cites authority curious view reason enough doubt addition however rejected argument last term norfolk western train dispatchers construed federal exemption antitrust laws law include exemption contract obligations observed passage flatly inconsistent plurality analysis today contract legal force apart law acknowledges binding character cf stevens dissenting find petitioner claim breach express warranty preempted act fraud misrepresentation claims analysis suspect begin plurality unwilling apply consistently justice blackmun cogently explains see ante opinion concurring part dissenting part new jersey common law duty avoid false statements material fact applied cigarette companies behavior based smoking health must said new jersey common law duty warn product dangers duty transcends relationship cigarette companies cigarette smokers neither duty specifically crafted eye toward smoking health none arguments plurality advances support distinction two persuasive congress specifically preserved acts federal trade commission authority police deceptive advertising practices see act act ante suggest congress intended comparable state authority survive fact least act generally excluded federal well state regulation exemption suggested broad enough reach laws governing fraud misrepresentation true laws governing fraud misrepresentation advertising impose identical legal standards whereas laws concerning warning necessary render product reasonably safe quite diverse ibid question whether ad featuring glamorous youthful smoker teeth misrepresentative almost certainly answered differently state state see ante discussing ftc initial cigarette advertising rules one forced select consistent methodology evaluating whether given legal duty based smoking health becomes obvious methodology must focus upon ultimate source duty common law upon proximate application use ultimate source approach legal duty based smoking health unless law derives directed smoking health gut statute inviting diverse nonuniform confusing cigarette advertising regulations congress sought avoid problem simply common law requirements imposed state executive agencies well long operating general statute authorizing supervision commercial advertising unfair trade practices new jersey many statutes already books et seq west et seq mckinney supp texas bus ann et seq supp apply petitioner claims called proximate application methodology determining whether invoke duties based smoking health ask whether whatever source duty imposes obligation case effect smoking upon health basis find petitioner misrepresentation claims preempted iii finally additional flaw plurality opinion systemic one infects even otherwise correct disposition petitioner claims opinion since proscribes requirement prohibition respect advertising promotion state law claims premised failure warn consumers channels communication advertising promotion covered ante emphasis added see ante preserves somewhat fanciful claims based duties relation advertising promotion one imagine law requiring manufacturers disclose health hazards products state public health agency also claims based duties complied taking action either within advertising promotional realm elsewhere thus appears case new jersey state common law requires manufacturers advise consumers products dangers law indifferent requirement met advertising promotion otherwise plurality apparently unprepared find preemption long jury instructedted zero deficiencies manufacturers advertising promotion think inconsistent law preemption advertising promotion normal means manufacturer communicates required product warnings prospective customers far economical means implausible congress meant save cigarette companies compelled convey data consumers means allow compelled means onerous still practical matter law compels manufacturers relinquish advertising promotion immunity accorded act test preemption setting one practical compulsion whether law practically compels manufacturers engage behavior congress barred prescribing directly ray atlantic richfield though hypothetical law requiring disclosure state regulatory agency seem survive test difficulty finding test met respect state laws require cigarette companies meet general standards fair warning regarding smoking health plurality joined justices blackmun kennedy souter analysis act apparently thinks act imposing federal package labeling requirement sets forth particular statement ante advertising preemption provision must read proscribe state laws compel use particular statements advertising besides complete non sequitur reasoning proves much similar prescription particular warning act likewise require us confine preemptive scope later statute specific prescriptive requirement prohibition presume include tort law obligations warn consumers product dangers versions act package labeling preemption provision less advertising preemption provision limited prescription particular language leaving free impose general health labeling requirements results obviously contrary act stated purposes