Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval28 U.S.C. § 133128 U.S.C. § 1441arising underremovalstate-law claim

Facts

Respondents sued in Ohio state court alleging that Bendectin caused birth defects. Most counts sounded in state common law, but one count alleged the drug was misbranded in violation of the FDCA because its labeling gave inadequate warnings, and alleged that this federal violation created a rebuttable presumption of negligence and directly caused the injuries. Petitioner removed on the ground that the action partly arose under federal law. For purposes of decision, the Court assumed that the FDCA created no private federal cause of action for these violations.

Issue

Does a state-law private action arise under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when it incorporates a federal statutory standard as an element of the claim, even though Congress intended there to be no private federal cause of action for violations of that federal statute?

Rule

A complaint alleging a violation of a federal statute as an element of a state cause of action does not state a claim arising under federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when Congress has determined that there should be no private federal cause of action for violation of that statute. The mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction, and the absence of a federal private remedy is strong evidence that the federal issue is not sufficiently substantial to support § 1331 jurisdiction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio state court, Lena Ortiz sues Blue Summit Nutraceuticals, a fictional supplement maker based in Columbus, for negligence under Ohio law after becoming ill. Her complaint alleges that the product's label violated a federal nutrition-labeling statute, and Ohio law treats such a violation as negligence per se; Congress provided no private federal cause of action under that statute.

Blue Summit removes the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, arguing that the complaint necessarily raises federal law. Should the federal court keep the case?

Explanation. The case should be remanded. The majority held that the mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction. Where Congress intended no private federal cause of action for violating the federal statute, that is strong evidence—indeed tantamount to a conclusion—that the embedded federal issue is not sufficiently substantial to support § 1331 jurisdiction. (Derived from Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (n.d.).)