Sunstein C R
University of Chicago, USA.
Duke Law J. 1998 Apr;47(6):1013-69.
Professor Cass Sunstein argues that the FDA has the authority to regulate tobacco products. He considers the text of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which supports the FDA assertion, and the context of its enactment, which argues against the FDA. He resolves the tension between text and context in favor of FDA jurisdiction by turning to the emerging role of administrative agencies. In modern government, he contends, administrative agencies have become America's common law courts, with the power to adapt statutory regimes to new facts and new values when the underlying statute is ambiguous. Professor Sunstein's Article, like the other pieces in this volume, was written after the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina decided Coyne Beahm v. FDA, but before a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FDA. In Coyne Beahm, the District Court held that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act authorized the FDA to regulate tobacco products, but not tobacco advertising. The Fourth Circuit rejected the District Court's jurisdictional ruling and invalidated the FDA's regulations in their entirety. The Clinton Administration has since requested an en banc rehearing before the Fourth Circuit.
卡斯·桑斯坦教授认为,美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)有权监管烟草产品。他考量了支持FDA主张的《联邦食品、药品和化妆品法案》的文本,以及反对FDA主张的该法案的制定背景。通过转向行政机构日益凸显的作用,他解决了文本与背景之间的矛盾,支持FDA的管辖权。他认为,在现代政府中,行政机构已成为美国的普通法法院,在基本法规含混不清时,有权使法定制度适应新事实和新价值观。桑斯坦教授的这篇文章,与本卷中的其他文章一样,是在美国北卡罗来纳州中区联邦地区法院判决科因·比厄姆诉FDA案之后、美国第四巡回上诉法院的一个由三名法官组成的合议庭在布朗 & 威廉姆森烟草公司诉FDA案中推翻该判决之前撰写的。在科因·比厄姆案中,地区法院裁定,《联邦食品、药品和化妆品法案》授权FDA监管烟草产品,但不包括烟草广告。第四巡回上诉法院驳回了地区法院的管辖权裁决,并使FDA的相关规定全部无效。此后,克林顿政府已请求第四巡回上诉法院进行全院重审。