Rutgers Law Professor Influences Supreme Court Decision and Testifies Before Congress on Drug Access

June 4 marked an extraordinary convergence of scholarly influence at the highest levels of government when Rutgers Law Board of Governors Professor Michael Carrier testified about drug access before a House Judiciary subcommittee less than an hour after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision consistent with the amicus brief he co-authored. In a rare alignment, the Court handed down a 9–0 decision shortly after 10 a.m. just as the congressional hearing was beginning.

When the ruling was announced at the hearing, Professor Carrier quickly reviewed the decision on his phone and explained to lawmakers why congressional action remained necessary even though the Court ruled unanimously in favor of the generic drug company.

Professor Carrier explained, “I had a sense that something was going on when Chairman Issa’s counsel passed him a note in the middle of his opening remarks. And then when he mentioned that a Supreme Court decision had just been issued, I quickly found the decision and analyzed it before giving my opening statement.”

The Court examined the issue of “skinny labels,” a regulatory mechanism that allows generic drug manufacturers to enter the market on unpatented uses of a drug while avoiding patented uses. A lower court had ruled that the generic company’s conduct encouraged doctors to infringe the brand firm’s patent. In response, Professor Carrier and his co-authors filed an amicus brief on behalf of 76 professors urging the Court to require involvement more active than calling its product “generic” before finding liability. The Supreme Court ultimately issued a unanimous decision consistent with the brief.

A nationally recognized authority on antitrust and intellectual property law, Professor Carrier testified at the hearing titled “Medicines and IP: Balancing Innovation and Access,” which examined one of today’s most urgent questions: how to maintain strong patent protections while ensuring affordable access to life-saving medications. Professor Carrier emphasized that congressional action is critical to providing clarity and certainty that generic firms need in the marketplace. He noted that lawmakers can offer more predictability than the U.S. Supreme Court.

He testified, “The litigation path is difficult. That’s why the skinny label is so important because it allows generics to enter the market without the hassle of litigation, without a two-and-a-half-year delay. Skinny labels are absolutely crucial to lowering prices for U.S. patients.” (Click here or the thumbnail below to view the full testimony.)
 

Professor Carrier’s influence on the Court extends well beyond this case. He has filed 25 amicus briefs, with courts frequently following his arguments. His previous Supreme Court briefs have been cited in major cases involving NCAA student-athletes getting paid and settlements in which brand-name drug companies pay generic firms to delay entering the market.

Professor Carrier’s dual role in shaping both Supreme Court jurisprudence and congressional policy discussion illustrates the broader impact of Rutgers Law scholarship. Professor Carrier was the third most cited professor in Food & Drug Law in the 2026 HeinOnline Scholarly Impact Rankings and was the third most cited antitrust professor in the latest study.

One of the goals of the Rutgers Law Strategic Plan is to promote an ambitious culture of scholarly inquiry leading to high quality and meaningful scholarship. Click here to learn more.