Document: 544 U.S. 431 BATES et al.v.DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC No. 03-388. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 10, 2005. Decided April 27, Petitioner Texas peanut farmers allege that their crops were severely damaged by the application respondent's (Dow) "Strongarm" pesticide, which Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered pursuant to its authority under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Petitioners gave Dow notice intent sue, claiming Strongarm's label recommended use in all peanut-growing areas when knew or should have known it would stunt growth peanuts soil, had pH levels at least 7.0. In response, sought a declaratory judgment District Court, asserting FIFRA pre-empted petitioners' claims. counterclaimed, raising several state-law claims sounding strict liability, negligence, fraud, breach express warranty. The rejected one claim on grounds found others barred FIFRA's pre-emption provision, 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b). Affirming, Fifth Circuit held 136v(b) expressly because against induce alter product label. Held: 1. Under FIFRA, was comprehensively amended 1972, manufacturer must obtain permission market pesticide submitting proposed supporting data EPA, will register if is efficacious, not cause unreasonable adverse effects humans environment, complies with statute's misbranding prohibition. A "misbranded" label, for example, contains statement "false misleading," 136(q)(1)(A), lacks adequate instructions warnings, §§ 136(q)(1)(F), (G). State may regulate sale federally pesticides extent regulation does permit any sales uses prohibited 136v(a), but "[s]uch shall impose continue effect requirements labeling packaging addition different from those required [FIFRA]," Though tort litigation manufacturers common feature legal landscape after this Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 504, term "requirement" Public Health Cigarette Smoking 1969 included common-law duties, therefore certain cigarette companies, courts began holding preempted such as petitioners'. Pp. 437-442. 2. provision applies only "requirements packaging." While correct "requirements" embraces both positive enactments erred supposing defective design, manufacture, negligent testing, breach-of-express warranty premised packaging. None rules upon these are based requires package products particular way. reached contrary conclusion reasoning finding liability This error prohibitions apply "requirements." requirement rule law be obeyed; an event, jury verdict, merely motives optional decision requirement. proper inquiry calls examination elements duty issue, speculation whether verdict prompt change 442-446. 3. Petitioners' fraud negligent-failure-to-warn claims, contrast, qualify packaging," since set standard product's alleged violated. subject 136v(b), automatically follow they pre-empted. Unlike clause Cipollone, prohibits "in from" requirements. Thus, pre-empts statutory diverges out implementing regulations. It pre-empt equivalent to, fully consistent with, standards. "parallel requirements" reading finds strong support Medtronic, Inc. Lohr, 518 470. although provide federal remedy injured result manufacturer's violation requirements, nothing precludes States providing remedy. Dow's fails make sense phrase from." Even offered plausible alternative accept disfavoring pre-emption. See New York Conference Blue Cross & Shield Plans Travelers Ins. Co., 514 645, 655. long history poisonous substances adds force presumption pre-emption, Congress surely expressed intention more clearly meant deprive parties available form compensation. Moreover, emphasizes importance incentive utmost care distributing inherently dangerous items. Finally, policy objections raised Court's unpersuasive. 446-452. 4. counterpart avoid need not, however, explicitly incorporate standards element action. Because has received sufficient briefing governing failure-to-warn relevant regulations, up resolve issue first instance. 453-454. 332 F.3d 323, vacated remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, post, p. 454. THOMAS, part dissenting part, SCALIA, joined, 455. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT. 2 David C. Frederick argued petitioners. With him briefs Scott K. Attaway Kimberly S. Keller. 3 Seth P. Waxman respondent. brief W. Ogden, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Dean T. Barnhard, Joseph R. Alberts. 4 Lisa Blatt amicus curiae urging affirmance. On Acting Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney Sansonetti, Deputy Hungar, Clark, Jeffrey Minear, James Kilbourne, Kenneth Von Schaumburg.* 5 JUSTICE STEVENS Court. 6 29 who 2000 growing season newly marketed named "Strongarm." question presented (FIFRA), 136 seq. (2000 ed. Supp. II), damages. * Pursuant conditionally Strongarm March 8, 2000, thereby granting respondent sell — weed killer1 obtained registration time farmers, normally plant around May According petitioners whose version facts we assume true stage knew, known, soils 7.0 greater.2 Nevertheless, stated, "Use where grown," App. 108, agents made representations pitches When applied farms 7.2 higher, typical western while failing control weeds. reported problems Dow, sent experts inspect crops. 8 Meanwhile, reregistered EPA prior 2001 season. approved "supplemental" "[d]istribution [u]se [o]nly states Mexico, Oklahoma Texas," id., 179, three experienced crop damage. new contained following warning: "Do greater." Id., 181. 9 After unsuccessful negotiations bring suit Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Act3 (hereinafter DTPA). action impliedly FIFRA. Petitioners, turn, brought counterclaims, including negligence. They also warranty, DTPA. granted motion summary judgment, rejecting dismissing remainder provides "shall subchapter." 10 Appeals affirmed. read "a label." 331 (CA5 2003). court deceptive trade practices focused oral statements did differ success give "strong incentive" Those thus 331-332. alleging design essentially "disguised" 332. reasoned: "One cannot escape heart farmers' grievance: soil level over 7.0, disclosed them. . inescapable again necessarily 332-333. employed similar find testing manufacture well. 333. 11 majority Courts Appeals,4 well state high courts,5 conflicted decisions other courts6 views forth California 2000.7 We certiorari conflict. 542 936 (2004). II 12 Prior 1910 provided primary possibly exclusive source regulatory distribution substances. Both Government's effort area, Insecticide 1910, 36 Stat. 331, originally enacted 1947, ch. 125, 61 163, primarily dealt licensing labeling. original sold interstate commerce Secretary Agriculture. complied determined efficacious safe.8 1970, assumed responsibility process. 13 spurred environmental safety concerns, adopted extensive amendments9 "transformed into comprehensive statute." Ruckelshaus Monsanto 467 986, 991 (1984). "As amended, regulated use, labeling, pesticides; produced intrastate commerce; review, cancellation, suspension registration; greater enforcement authority." 991-992. 1972 amendments imposed criterion safety. 992. generally F. Grad, Treatise Law 8.02-8.03 (2004) (tracing evolution). 14 currently stands, seeking submit data. 136a(c)(1)(C), (F). agency determines (with caveat discussed below), 136a(c)(5)(A); 136a(c)(5)(C), (D); 136(bb); prohibition misbranding, 136a(c)(5)(B); 40 CFR 152.112(f) misleading particular," false concerning efficacy pesticide. 136(q)(1)(A); 156.10(a)(5)(ii). misbranded contain omits necessary warnings cautionary statements. (G).10 15 unlawful statute nevertheless misbranded, continuing obligation adhere 136j(a)(1)(E); see 136a(f)(2) (registration prima facie evidence comply defense statute); 136a(f)(1) (a seek approval amend label). Additionally, report incidents involving pesticide's toxic adequately reflected label's 159.184(a), (b) (2004), institute cancellation proceedings, 136d(b), take misbranded.11 16 Section 136v, added amendments, addresses States' role regulation. As codified, 136v provides: 17 "(a) general 18 "A device State, subchapter. 19 "(b) Uniformity 20 "Such 21 "(c) Additional 22 "(1) additional formulated within meet special local needs accord purposes subchapter previously been denied, disapproved, canceled Administrator. Such deemed section 136a title subchapter, authorize State. ." 1978, once 92 819, response EPA's concern evaluation during process diverted too many resources task assessing health dangers posed pesticides. addressed problem authorizing waive pertaining efficacy, permitting without confirming 136a(c)(5). 1979, invoked grant issued waiver limited qualifications applicable here. 44 Fed. Reg. 27932 (1979); 158.640(b) published years later 1996, confirmed "stopped evaluating routine approvals almost two decades ago," Pesticide Registration Notice 96-4, (June 3, 1996), http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr96-4.html, 232, clarified "EPA's reflect determination damage property damage," 5, 235. referred earlier observed "`pesticide producers aware potentially suits user community prove ineffective actual use.'" 2, 230 (quoting 47 40661 (col. 2) (1982)). place thus, never passed accuracy recommending grown." 23 Although modern ago, arising law. entertained before passage 1947,12 amendments.13 Indeed, decade arguments either advanced unsuccessful. See, e. g., Ferebee Chevron Chemical 736 2d 1529 (CADC 1984). 1992 U. "requirement prohibition" groundswell emerged like litigation. 24 context. Wisconsin Intervenor Mortier, 501 597 (1991), considered small town's ordinance requiring aerial restrictions regulation, unanimously claim. our noted sufficiently justify inference occupied field exclusion States." 607. "To contrary, leaves ample room localities supplement efforts even absent authorization 136v(a)." 613. 25 supplementary role, review labels ensure requirements.14 Nothing text prevent making offense, imposing own sanctions violate imposition violating duplicate equally 136v. III 26 Against background, consider claims15 which, again, reads follows: 27 introductory words State" appear limit coverage subsection described preceding (a). regulates beyond dispute case. 28 An occurrence motivates quite wrong might "induce" viewed did, correctly hold reaches enactments, statutes embrace duties. Our supports conclusion. U.S., 521 (plurality opinion) ("The `[n]o prohibition' sweeps broadly suggests no distinction between law; easily encompass obligations rules"); 548-549 (SCALIA, part). invariably carry meaning, think best That judge-made rules, says about scope For pre-empted, satisfy conditions. First, "for packaging"; product, Second, word "poison" red letters, instance, same 30 perfectly clear rely do condition. Rules require reasonably safe products, due conducting appropriate free manufacturing defects, honor warranties contractual commitments plainly "labeling 31 To sure, located label.16 But asks good commitment voluntarily undertook placing product.17 event elects so, say anything 525-526 opinion).18 32 arriving conclusion, below reasoned "induce [its] 3d, 332.19 effects-based test speaks 524 opinion); call question, depend variety cost/benefit calculations left accountants). 33 inducement unquestionably overbroad impeach "genuine" defect concedes claim, successful, list ingredients necessitated improvement design. entirely confirms State's broad pesticides.20 ban finds, label-approved unsafe. warn questioned use. test, restriction anomalously "labeling" highly unlikely endeavored draw line type indirect pressure caused power attenuated exerted suits. supported structure statute. 34 These violated containing inadequate warnings. appeals rightly guidance Cipollone's interpretation "requirements," some quickly concluded paying attention rather obvious textual differences clauses.21 35 Cipollone,22 provisions. argue failure duties misleading" statements, agree insofar order survive discuss below, leave decide instance adopt today 470 (1996). addressing similarly worded regulating medical devices, "[n]othing [21 U.S.C.] 360k denies Florida right traditional damages violations parallel requirements." 495.23 O'CONNOR explained her separate seeks enforce "does `different from, to,' threat comply, them differ. preclude remedies, 513 (opinion Accordingly, 37 joined curiae, argues "give juries 50 content prohibition, establishing crazy-quilt anti-misbranding defined itself intended interpreted authoritatively EPA." Brief Respondent 16; Amicus Curiae 25-27. view, Medtronic so avoided. Conspicuously submissions meaning. Instead, favor statute, following: amputated doubt succinctly commanded not. 38 us indeed, just disfavors "[B]ecause independent sovereigns system, presumed cavalierly causes action." 485. supplanted unless "`clear manifest.'" 655 (1995) Rice Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 218, (1947)); makes each favored canons interpretation. notion nonambiguous command types particularly dubious given five ago advocated today.24 39 basic If compensation, clearly. Silkwood Kerr-McGee 464 238, 251 (1984).25 business 613 (stating amendments' goal "strengthen existing followed practice"). Particularly allow (and course technical changes 136v(b)), seems relatively obscure virtual immunity forms liability. Overenforcement creates risk unnecessary financial burdens manufacturers; under-enforcement risks consumers, affect environment greatly overstate degree uniformity centralization characterizes fact, authorizes decentralized scheme preserves Most significantly, restrict approved, 136v(a); register, restrictions, 136v(c). 136w-1 (authorizing violations). literal concurrent Governments sphere. 41 Private remedies seem aid, than hinder, functioning prescribed immutable warning contemplates evolve time, gain information products' performance diverse settings. explained, can serve catalyst process: 42 "By encouraging plaintiffs injuries recognized traceable [the there issue], kind aid exposure associated Successful actions sort lead petition detailed labelling products; alternatively, revised light through addition, specter dynamic incentives keep abreast possible stemming forestall improvement." Ferebee, 2d, 1541-1542. 43 exaggerate disruptive using misbranding. inaccurate enactment date continued amendments. pointed led "crazy-quilt" otherwise created real hardship EPA. much period appears welcomed properly instructed occasion reach conclusions reason occurrences frequent difficulties regularly every day bear conflicting verdicts. bears noting lay anathema scheme: criminal prosecutions provisions, 136l(b), pass allegations sum, interpretation, retains narrow, still important, role. main, competing imagine regimes prescribing color, font size, wording create significant inefficiencies manufacturers.26 45 Having settled remains decided issue,27 involves questions law, remand Appeals. emphasize fact determine falsity Texas' definition broader statements," difference. State-law measured regulations stated "DANGER" instead subdued "CAUTION" inconsistent 156.64 specifically assigns classes toxicity.28 46 undertaking analysis pleadings case, mind concept equivalence. phrased identical language corresponding requirement; surprising used phraseology case proceeds trial, court's nominally genuinely equivalent. defendant requests, instruct standards, add liable vacated, remanded further proceedings opinion. 48 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal al. Greg Abbott, Texas, Ted Cruz, General, Barry McBee, First Edward D. Burbach, Sean Jordan, Attorneys respective Troy King Alabama, Bill Lockyer California, Richard Blumenthal Connecticut, Madigan Illinois, Thomas J. Miller Iowa, Reilly Massachusetts, Mike Hatch Minnesota, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, McGrath Montana, Eliot Spitzer York, Jim Petro Ohio, W.A. Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Mark L. Shurtleff Utah, William H. Sorrell Vermont, Jerry Kilgore Virginia, Christine O. Gregoire Washington; Association Trial Lawyers America R.C. Westmoreland Todd A. Smith; Natural Resources Defense Council Patti Goldman, Grant Cope, Brian Wolfman, Leslie Brueckner; Western Peanut Growers Donahue Goldberg; Herbert Samuel Harrison Mikal Watts. amici affirmance American Chemistry Faulk; BASF Corp. Bruce Jones; Chamber Commerce Alan Untereiner Robin Conrad; Croplife Lawrence Ebner Douglas Nelson; E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. Viet Dinh; Product Liability Advisory Council, Geller Miriam Nemetz; Powers, Jr., M. Gunn, Russell Post; Washington Legal Foundation Daniel Popeo; Edwin Johnson E. Menotti. Moore, Glen Shu, Matthew Caligur, Patrick Lysaught Research Institute curiae. commonly called herbicide, classified 136(t), (u) "pH," stands pondus hydrogenii, "potential hydrogen," refers acidity Tex. Bus. Com. Code Ann. 17.01et (West 2002). See,e.g., Grenier Vermont Log Buildings, 96 559 (CA1 1996); Kuiper Cyanamid 131 656 (CA7 1997); Netland Hess 284 895 (CA8 Etcheverry Tri-Ag Serv., Cal.4th 316, 993 P.2d 366 (2000). F.2d 1984); Geye, 79 S.W.3d (Tex. BriefAmicus S072524 (Cal.Sup.Ct.) Etcheverry). position. 20. declined registration, refused changes, "under protest." 1964, eliminated procedure, disappointed challenge denial administrative review. 78 190 Control 86 973 conspicuously display 136(q)(1)(E). mention few examples, name address producer, number, ingredient statement. 156.10(a)(1)(ii), (iv), (vi) "stop sale, removal" orders seize offending products. 136k(a), (b). Further, subjected civil penalties 136l. Mossrud Lee, 163 Wis. 229, 157 N. 758 (1916); West Disinfecting Plummer, 345 McCrossin Noyes Bros. Cutler, 143 Minn. 181, 173 566 (1919); White National Bank Commerce, 99 Cal. 519, 278 915 (1929). Hursh, Annotation, Manufacturer Seller Injury Caused Animal Feed Medicines, Crop Sprays, Fertilizers, Insecticides, Rodenticides, Similar Products, 81 138, 144 (1962) ("A due, reasonable binds sellers kind. includes product-connected dangers, tests, seller inspection" (footnotes omitted)) (collecting cases) Website explains, "Federal selling States, person company license, conduct use." Pesticides: Regulating Pesticides, Evaluating Potential Pesticides Uses, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/index.htm (as visited Apr. 6, 2005, Clerk file). 8.05, 8-140 ("All state[s] pesticides, [FIFRA] 1947");id., 8-143 8-218 (reviewing States). record confusion what precise issue. posture claims: DTPA, (including manufacture), testing. warn, press here, proceed remand. Of course, view viable matter Nor we, early litigation, opine adduce stated: "Dow AgroSciences warrants conforms chemical description fit accordance directions, inherent below." 111 agents, fall outside reason. defines "all written, printed, graphic matter" accompany 136(p)(2), agent'soral DTPA 3d 2003) (citing law). Other taken approach. See,e. Netland, 900 ("Thus, Netland's Bovinol's overall guide analysis, ask error, choose product"). InWisconsin 136v(a) retained FIFRA; "serve hand back powers usurped." 614. Taylor AG Industries Pure-Gro, 54 555, (CA9 1995) ("There notable difference FIFRA"); Shaw Brands, 994 364, 371 1993) ("Not most dedicated hair-splitter could distinguish statements"). "No smoking respect advertising promotion cigarettes packages labeled conformity provisions [Act]." 1334(b);Cipollone, 515. added: "Even conduct, hazard users narrower, broader, narrower from' sense, strange duplicates rule." 495 33-35. (explaining subsequent view). answer that, label-related reading, non-label-related remain intact. Given nature gains achieved modifying improving asAmicus legislative crafting industry representative testified: "Some want `flammable,' `inflammable.' Some lettering; orange, another yellow, forth. committee, therefore, recognize, number statutes, industry's act." Hearings 1971 House Committee Agriculture, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 281-283 (1971) (statement Robert Ackerly). By lengthy barren indication abrogate owed terms, identified refine way allegations. Rather, chosen mount attack seeming thatexpressly incorporates 38, n. 25. Since benefit construction allowed matters At present, elaborate promulgates future, 49 concurring. I write separately stress practical "be against" "that Act's (FIFRA)] standards." Ante, 453. (1996), agency, Food Drug Administration, ordinary constraints promulgate pre-emptive agency's understanding "whether (or which) interfere objectives." 506 judgment). enjoys 136w(a)(1). suggested charged administering often better able mirror distort simply help expose "`new pesticides,'" ante, 451 1529, 1541 1984)), counterproductive "`crazy-quilt requirements,'" 448 16). And, constraints, act accordingly. Cf. Hillsborough County Automated Medical Laboratories, 471 707, 721 (1985) (agencies monitor pre-empting legislation interferes goals). Emphasizing overseeing future implementation, join 51 whom SCALIA joins, part. 52 24(b) 443. FIFRA's. 452-454. predicated accompanying promulgated Agency, distinct care. permits augment substantive 470, (1996) (O'CONNOR, standards,* remands mirrors 53 However, step explicit: action, specific imposes attaches produce then supplemental truthfulness misleading." 136(q)(1)(A). why here liability-incurring are, same. reasoning, mistreats sets breach-of-warranty majority's disposition, 444-445. 551 (1992) holds (DTPA) 445, 18. (and, perhaps exclusively) 185-186. Therefore, aspects 55 note despite reference 442-443, 15, treated "disguised claim[s] warn." 332-333 offer Strongarm, fail merits. point, agree. 15. 56 go meaning 136v(b)'s terms plain Yet advances designed tip scales Government. arguments, being unnecessary, choosing 449. apply, provision. supra, 545-546 part); Nelson, Preemption, Va. Rev. 225, 291-292, 298-303 explicit pre-empts, slanting Government 57 irrelevant. 449-450. know, looking preserved tradition displaced it. notes preserve suits, indicate 452, 26; Small 406 (THOMAS, dissenting) (criticizing novel practice relying silence history); Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Nigh, 543 50, 73-74 (same). then, enacting enough: Either speak specificity (to pre-emption) individual Members congressional committees preference canon silence). believe agrees remand, unable pursue fraud. allowing likely aids enforcing 451, Congress, strike balance 58 declines argument 36-37. "so pervasive," interest dominant," remedies. (1947). "stan[d] obstacle accomplishment execution full objectives Congress" Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 67 (1941). 59 Today's comports increasing reluctance expand doctrines implied Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Town Harrison, 520 564, 617 (1997) dissenting). reflects "[a] freewheeling judicial tension objectives," Gade Solid Wastes Management Assn., 88, (KENNEDY, judgment), meanings counterclaim disclaims 192 (First Amended Counterclaim)

Category: 9