for instance, in wyeth vs. levine, if they had taken account of the particular risks and decided that despite these particular risks, this is the way the warning really should be, if they actually had in the altria case talked about what the required cigarette companies to put certain kinds of nicotine amounts on their labels, then i think the court would have come out differently because we actually would have had the liberation of the expert agency. and i think that changes the preemption calculus because then there's the concern that we don't want to have juries overruling the expert agency. it's also because we'll have a decision in a national market, we'll actually have deliberation that this is the best way to proceed. on the other hand, if we don't have substantial deliberation by the agencies of the government, the danger is that the court because people have simply failed to deliberate, then what preelse becomes is a kind of laissez-faire. even if we haven't had the democratic process even through the

i'll mention the wyeth case. the first was an compress preemming case which, because the congress had a specific statute covering preemption. the wyeth case had to do with the marketing a pharmaceuticals and the pharmaceutical company there was being sued for failure adequately to warn with respect to the pharmaceutical product and the alleged failure to warn allowed a medical practitioner to administer the drug in a way in which it caused very, very serious injuries. and the pharmaceutical company said the process by which the labeling of pharmaceutical products and warnings is all arranged according to a process through the food and drug administration and we had to label -- the labeling was approved and it had to be labeled that way and if you start having every different state through tort cases decide what the labeling should be, that undermines the uniformity of the expert judgment of the food and drug administration. in another decision by justice stevens, this one was 6-3, the court held that there was no

and justice stevens says in the wyeth opinion that this change is entitled no no deference under chef ron. it was really an extraordinary supreme court reaction to that kind of administrative lapse. >> there is one justice's answer to my question about deference. no deference. now, let's move on to an area, which is, of course, year in and year out a staple of the court's document. criminal justice cases, especially fourth amendment cases regularly appear. i thought for discussion of that, january crawford greenberg. >> thanks, dick. we have quite a few, obviously, as you would expect, fourment cases this term, as we do every term. those are in your materials. instead of just going over every single one, some of which, while interesting fact actually, are not that groundbreaking. i'm going to pull out a few that i think are most interesting and also kind of touch on some of the broader themes dick was talking about when we first got the discussion started. in the first case, of course, the saffered versus redding that you probably saw the coverage of, the strip search case. maybe you

wyeth joined in to whistle-blower suits against for reciprocal giant wyeth, the drug company failed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in rebates to the medicaid program. you know, i hear a lot of fraud, and i hear a lot about waste but what i don't hear about is the role that the major corporate giants in the health care industry are playing and ripping off the american people to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. i don't know why we don't talk about that issue the drug companies, huge fine after a huge fine and let's be clear especially under the bush administration whose competence isn't widely respected and also known as being sympathetic to corporate interest every falling, every charge we have seen probably you could multiply many times they are sitting out there with an aggressive attorney general's office might have gone after. let's look at some of the private insurance companies some people here see as a model that we want to support. united health, 20 or nine, united health paid $350 million to settle lawsuits brought by the ama state medical society doctors a

wyeth v. lavigne involved drugs rather than devices, and the absence of a preemings clause in that statute -- pre-emption clause in that statute proved as positive. tort laws and the state law could be maintained the court held 6-3, claims for inadequate warnings on drug labels. caperton v.a.t. massy coal company came with a record resembling john grisham's novel "the appeal." the case involved a $50 million jury verdict in favor of caperton, who charged that the coal company's predatory practices drove him out of business. the west virginia supreme court, dividing 3-2, reversed a judgment for caperton and declared victory for the coal company. there was one problem. justice benjamin, who cast the deciding vote in west virginia's highest court, was newly-elected to the court. the coal company's c.e.o. had to defeat -- had spent $3 million to defeat the incumbent whose seat benjamin won. dividing 5-4, we concluded that benjamin's participation in the case violated capertop's right to due proces

wyeth v. lavigne involved drugs rather than devices, and the absence of a preemings clause in that statute -- pre-emption clause in that statute proved as positive. tort laws and the state law tort laws and the state law could be maintained the court held 6-3, claims for inadequate warnings on drug labels. caperton v. a.c. massy