John Paul Stevens,
United States v. Smith — Dissenting Opinion
“ Nevertheless, this action is consistent with Congress' general intent, expressed throughout the hearings and in the House Report, that it not curtail any pre-existing remedies of tort victims. Unless the amendment was intended to preserve the Gonzalez Act remedy, it was essentially without purpose-a result Congress clearly could not have intended.The Court's reading of the Liability Reform Act makes § 5 (b) (2) (B) superfluous. [8] Indeed, the Court never says what kind of statutory violation § 5 (b) (2) (B) is meant to protect, nor does Congress provide any specific guidance. ”
