| Litigants: | Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC |
| Arguedate: | January 10 |
| Argueyear: | 2005 |
| Decidedate: | April 27 |
| Decideyear: | 2005 |
| Fullname: | Dennis Bates, et al., Petitioners v. Dow Agrosciences LLC |
| Docket: | 03-388 |
| Usvol: | 544 |
| Uspage: | 431 |
| Parallelcitations: | 125 S. Ct. 1788; 161 L. Ed. 2d 687; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 3706 |
| 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. |
| Majority: | Stevens |
| Joinmajority: | Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence: | Breyer |
| Concurrence/Dissent: | Thomas |
| Joinconcurrence/Dissent: | Scalia |
| Lawsapplied: | (Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 5, § 207(Supp. 2008) (Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act) |
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]
A 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]
In 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]
Justice 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]