The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Granted: Monday, June 28, 2004
Argument: Monday, January 10, 2005
Decision: Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Issues: Federalism, Federal Preemption of State Jurisdiction

Advocates

Lisa S. 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)

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.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 7 votes for Bates, 2 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote a regular concurrence
Breyer
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Thomas' dissent
Scalia
Wrote a dissent
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_388/>
(last visited ).