Opinion ID: 868147
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consistency with Monsanto v. Geertson Farms

Text: The plaintiffs nevertheless contend that the district court’s decision upholding APHIS’s unconditional deregulation of RRA conflicts with the Supreme Court’s Monsanto decision, where the Court looked at alternatives to deregulation. The two decisions, however, concern different issues. In Monsanto, the Court’s decision went only to the scope of the injunction enjoining the planting and deregulation of RRA pending preparation of the EIS. Monsanto, 130 S. Ct. at 2756. The Court assumed, without deciding, that APHIS had jurisdiction to regulate RRA. Id. In this appeal, the issue is whether APHIS correctly determined that RRA is not a plant pest, thereby compelling unconditional deregulation of RRA. The Supreme Court in Monsanto expressly noted that it was not addressing that issue. Id. (“[W]e assume without deciding that the District Court [in Geertson] acted lawfully in vacating [APHIS’s] deregulation decision.”). Monsanto is therefore not on point, and thus the district court’s decision before us is not inconsistent with Monsanto.