Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not preempt state law claims, brought by a group of Texas farmers, alleging that one of Dow's pesticides damaged their peanut crop.[1]
| Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 10, 2005 Decided April 27, 2005 | |
| Full case name | Dennis Bates, et al., Petitioners v. Dow Agrosciences LLC |
| Docket no. | 03-388 |
| Citations | 544 U.S. 431 (more) 125 S. Ct. 1788; 161 L. Ed. 2d 687; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 3706 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Summary judgment for defendants, 436 F. Supp. 2d 132 (Me. 2006); reversed, 501 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007); cert. granted, 552 U.S. ___ (2008) |
| Holding | |
| Federal law does not preempt the application of state law in insecticide labeling requirements. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Breyer |
| Concur/dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia |
| Laws applied | |
| 15 U.S.C. § 1334(b) (Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 5, § 207(Supp. 2008) (Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act) | |
Background
editA group of 29 peanut farmers in Texas alleged that their peanut crops were severely damaged by Dow's "Strongarm" pesticide.[2] After the farmers informed Dow that they intended to file a lawsuit, Dow filed a request in federal district court for a declaratory judgment stating that a legal claim brought by the farmers would be preempted by FIFRA.[3] The farmers then filed counterclaims against Dow, which alleged tort claims and violations of consumer protection laws.[4] The district court granted Dow's motion for summary judgment and found that all but one of the farmers' claims were preempted by FIFRA.[5] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.[6] In 2004, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split regarding the extent to which FIFRA preempts claims under state law.[7]
Opinion of the Court
editIn an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the farmers' claims were not preempted by FIFRA.[8] Justice Stevens wrote that "[n]othing in the text of FIFRA would prevent a State from making the violation of a federal labeling or packaging requirement a state offense, thereby imposing its own sanctions on pesticide manufacturers who violate federal law."[9] Justice Stevens also distinguished the facts of this case from those in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.,[10] noting that FIFRA "prohibits only state-law labeling and packaging requirements that are “in addition to or different from” the labeling and packaging requirements under FIFRA."[11]
Concurring and dissenting opinions
editJustice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion to emphasize "the importance of the [Environmental Protection] [A]gency's role in overseeing FIFRA's future implementation".[12] Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.[13] Justice Thomas argued that "[a] state-law cause of action, even if not specific to labeling, nevertheless imposes a labeling requirement 'in addition to or different from' FIFRA's when it attaches liability to statements on the label that do not produce liability under FIFRA."[14]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 434 (2005).
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 434.
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 435 (noting that the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.01 et seq. (West 2002), required the farmers to provide notice).
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 435-36.
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 436 ("rejecting one claim on state-law grounds and dismissing the remainder as expressly pre-empted by 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b)").
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 436.
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 436-37.
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 444 ("petitioners’ claims for defective design, defective manufacture, negligent testing, and breach of express warranty are not pre-empted").
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 442.
- ^ Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992).
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 447.
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 454-55 (Breyer, J., concurring).
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 455 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
- ^ Bates, 544 U.S. at 456 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
External links
edit- Text of Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)