the absence of a direct conflict, a state law violates the supremacy clause when it ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ ” Id. at 186-87 (quoting Mass. Med. Soc’y v. Dukakis, 815 F.2d 790, 791 (1st Cir.1987) (citations omitted)). 1. Presumption Against Preemption Defendants vigorously contend that there should be no presumption against preemption in this context, for “[pjolicing fraud against federal agencies is hardly ‘a field which the States have traditionally occupied,’ ... such as to warrant a presumption against finding federal preemption of a state-law cause of action.” Buckman, 531 U.S. at 347, 121 S.Ct. 1012 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)) (<HOLDING>). The Courts have long presumed that the
holding fraudulent representations to the fda could not sustain statelaw claims holding that plaintiffs state claims were not preempted because defendant failed to show that these claims rested on standards other than those permitted by the fda holding that state claims for fraudulent submissions to the fda were preempted holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that state law fraud on the fda claims were impliedly preempted by the food drug and cosmetic act