context: Courts are not at liberty to expand the language chosen by Congress, and the omission here is telling. Thus, while Section 2718(c) saves from the OPA's diminution the ability of the United States or state entities to impose requirements relating to oil discharges, it does not save those powers from the effects of the CWA or any other non-identified federal law. Consistent with this conclusion, the Supreme Court in Ouellette held that a savings clause commencing with "nothing in this section" is by its terms limited to preemption caused by that section alone.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 107 S.Ct. 812, 812
citation_a.parenthetical: such a clause "does not purport to preclude preemption of state law by other provisions of the Act"
citation_a.sentence: See 479 U.S. at 493, 107 S.Ct. at 812 (such a clause “does not purport to preclude preemption of state law by other provisions of the Act”); see also United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 106, 120 S.Ct. 1135, 1146-47, 146 L.Ed.2d 69 (2000) (Section 2718 does not extend to subjects addressed in other Titles of the OPA or other acts).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 120 S.Ct. 1135, 1146-47
citation_b.parenthetical: Section 2718 does not extend to subjects addressed in other Titles of the OPA or other acts
citation_b.sentence: See 479 U.S. at 493, 107 S.Ct. at 812 (such a clause “does not purport to preclude preemption of state law by other provisions of the Act”); see also United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 106, 120 S.Ct. 1135, 1146-47, 146 L.Ed.2d 69 (2000) (Section 2718 does not extend to subjects addressed in other Titles of the OPA or other acts).