Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

Media Items
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Lisa Blatt (argued the cause for Respondent, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)
David C. Frederick (argued the cause for Petitioners)
Seth P. Waxman (argued the cause for Respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
03-388
Petitioner: 
Dennis Bates, et al.
Respondent: 
Dow Agrosciences LLC
Opinion: 
544 U.S. 431 (2005)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC , 544 U.S. 431 (2005)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_388)
Facts of the Case: 

A group of peanut farmers in Texas threatened to sue Dow Agrosciences in state court for damages caused by one of Dow's herbicides. The farmers alleged Dow violated Texas labeling requirements. Dow asked a federal district court to rule the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted and therefore prohibited the farmers' state law claims. The district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled FIFRA expressly prohibited additional state labeling requirements such as Texas'.

Question: 

Does the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempt farmers' state tort claims alleging that Dow's herbicide damaged crops?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the peanut farmers could sue Dow in state court. The Court reasoned that FIFRA preempts only state-law "requirements for labeling or packaging." The peanut farmers' defective manufacture, negligent testing, and breach of warranty claims were based on common-law and did not necessarily require that Dow label or package products in a particular way. The farmers' fraud and negligent-failure to warn claims, by contrast, were based on common-law rules that qualified as "requirements for labeling or packaging." However, FIFRA preempted only state-law labeling requirements" that were "in addition to or different from" FIFRA's labeling standards. The Court sent back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the question whether Texas law governing fraud and failure-to-warn claims was parallel to FIFRA.

Decisions

Decision: 7 votes for Bates, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the minority, joined Thomas' dissent
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote a dissent
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote a regular concurrence
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court