announcer: the supreme court oral argument in merck sharp and dohme corp. v albrecht. it concerns whether a pharmaceutical company can be sued in state court after the fda rejects the risk label. this is about an hour and five minutes. >> we will hear argument first this morning in case 17 to 90, merck sharp and dohm

announcer: the supreme court oral argument in merck sharp and dohme corp. v albrecht. it concerns whether a pharmaceutical company can be sued in state court after the fda rejects the risk label. this is about an hour and five minutes. >> we will hear argument first this morning in case 17 to 90, merck sharp and dohme versus albrecht. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. the respondent's theory is that the fda, fully informed of the risk of fractures, ignored the risk at its own statutory and regulatory responsibilities because it did not like the way merck phrased its warning. that cannot be right. if a manufacturer informs the fda of a possible risk and unsuccessfully asks to revise its label in light of that risk, then failure the wind claims in light of that risk are preempted as a matter of law. that follows with the statutory and regulatory framework governing the fda's conduct and from the presumption of regularity. the presumption of regularity assumes that federal agencies do their jobs correctly. the fda's job includes protecting the public heal