Document: 501 U.S. 597 111 S.Ct. 2476 115 L.Ed.2d 532 WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVENOR, et al., Petitionersv.Ralph MORTIER al. No. 89-1905. Argued April 24, 1991. Decided June 21, Syllabus The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA or Act), 7 U.S.C. § 136 seq., was primarily a pesticide licensing labeling law until 1972, when it transformed by Congress into comprehensive regulatory statute. Among other things, the 1972 amendments significantly strengthened pre-existing registration standards, specified that FIFRA regulates use as well sales labeling, granted increased enforcement authority to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Regarding state local authorities, FIFRA, amended, includes provisions requiring manufacturers produce records for inspection "upon request of any officer employee . State political subdivision," 136f(b); directing EPA cooperate with "any appropriate agency subdivision thereof in securing uniformity regulations," 136t(b); specifying "[a] State" may regulate sale so long such regulation does not permit prohibited Act, 136v(a). Pursuant its statutory police power, petitioner town adopted an ordinance that, inter alia, requires certain applications pesticides private lands. After issued decision unfavorable respondent Mortier on his application spray portion land, he brought declaratory judgment action county court, claiming, among preempted FIFRA. court summary Mortier, Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, finding pre-emption ground Act's text legislative history demonstrate clearly manifest congressional intent prohibit governmental units. Held: pre-empt use. Pp. 604-616. (a) When considering pre-emption, this starts assumption States' historic powers are superseded federal unless is clear purpose Congress. That be expressed terms statute itself. Absent explicit preemptive language, supersede nonetheless implicit if, example, touches field which interest dominant system will assumed preclude laws same subject. Even where has chosen occupy particular field, preemption occur extent actually conflict, compliance both physical impossibility, stands obstacle accomplishment Congress' purposes objectives. 604-605. (b) nowhere expressly supersedes regulation. Neither language nor relied below, whether read together separately, suffices establish preemption. fact 136v(a) refers only having use, failure include subdivisions 136(aa) definition "State," wholly inadequate requisite intent. Mere silence insufficient context. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 218, 230, 67 1146, 1152, 91 L.Ed. 1447. And exclusion governments cannot inferred from express authorization "State[s]" because term self-limiting; merely subordinate components very entity empowers. Cf., e.g., Sailors Board Education Kent County, 387 105, 108, 87 1549, 1552, 18 650. Indeed, more plausible reading leaves allocation absolute discretion States themselves, including options specific redelegation leaving hands authorities under existing laws. Nor there merit Mortier's contention references §§ 136t(b) 136f(b) "political subdivision[s]" show made distinction between nonregulatory authority, exercised subdivisions, reserved Furthermore, at best ambiguous, reflecting disagreement responsible committees provision would become 136v pre-empted 606-610. (c) also fails provide indication sought supplant over impliedly. argument occupied entire provisions, 136v(a), reopened portions but unpersuasive. Section itself undercuts inference since 136v(b) prohibits enacting imposing packaging requirements conflict those required This pure surplusage if had already field. otherwise imply pre-emption. While turned statute, substantial still left vacant, area issue case. seeks affirmative scheme actual permitting. Thus, grant must municipalities act ensuring could continue even where, regard banning mislabeled products, narrow pre-emptive overlap might occur. 611-614. (d) There no either generally. Compliance impossibility. Moreover, assertions goals promoting coordinated solely levels, rests upon some degree technical expertise, unduly burden interstate commerce based little than snippets policy speculations As evidenced 136t(b), implies partnership federal, state, governments. coordination promote extends beyond matters deals, strongly enough compel conclusion independently enacted falls outside statute's reach frustrates purpose. felt ordinances necessarily rest expertise commerce. 614-616. 154 Wis.2d 18, 452 N.W.2d 555 (1990), reversed remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed concurring judgment. Thomas J. Dawson, Madison, Wis., petitioners. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., U.S., amicus curiae, supporting petitioners, special leave Court. Paul Kent, respondents. Justice WHITE 1 case us consider (FIFRA), 61 Stat. 163, seq. pre-empts We hold not. 2 * A. 3 1947 replace Government's first effort regulation, Insecticide 1910, 36 331. 163. Like predecessor, originally "was statute." Ruckelshaus Monsanto Co., 467 986, 991, 104 2862, 2866, 81 815 (1984). In growing environmental safety concerns led undertake revision through Pesticide Control Act. 86 973. FIFRA's standards. 136a. To help make applied accordance these revisions further insured "regulated pesticides; regulated produced sold intrastate commerce; [and] provided review, cancellation, suspension registration." Ruckleshaus, supra, 991-992, S.Ct., 2867. An additional change (EPA), been charged oversight 1970. See Reorganization Plan 1970, 35 Fed.Reg. 15623 (1970), 5 U.S.C.App., p. 1343. fashion, "transformed 4 specifies several roles authorities. authorizes Administrator enter cooperative agreements enforce provisions. 136u, 136w-1. part scheme, subdivision, duly designated Administrator." 136f(b). directs thereof." 136t(b). Of relevance case, 24(a) B Petitioner, Casey, small rural community located Washburn Wisconsin, miles northwest Spooner, road Superior.1 1985, Ordinance 85-1, pesticides. borrows definitions Wis.Stat. 61.34(1), (5) (1989-1990), accords village boards general police, health, taxing powers.2 6 public lands, lands subject aerial Ord. 1.2, App. Pet. Cert. 6. A applicant file form information about proposed less 60 days before desired 1.3(2), id., 7. board "deny permit, reasonable conditions permitted related protection welfare residents Town Casey." 1.3(3), 11-12. initial decision, resident obtain hearing regarding application. 1.3(4), (5), 12-14. granted, conditions, permittee post placards giving notice label prescribing safe reentry time. 1.3(7), 14-16. Persons found guilty violating fines up $5,000 each violation. 1.3(7)(c), 16. Respondent Ralph spraying land. him precluded restricted allowed. conjunction Forestry/Rights-of-Way/Turf Coalition,3 Circuit County against Casey named members, claiming Casey's law. Public Intervenor, assistant attorney rights, 165.07, 165.075 admitted without objection party defendant. On cross-motions judgment, ruled favor holding town's 94.67-94.71; 14. 8 affirmed 4-to-3 decision. (1990). Declining address state-law concluded demonstrated units government." Id., 20, n. 2, 30, N.W.2d, 555, 560. court's accorded judgments two Courts Appeals. Professional Lawn Care Association Milford, 909 F.2d 929 (CA6 1990); Maryland Pest Montgomery 822 55 (CA4 1987), summarily aff'g 646 F.Supp. 109 (D.Md.1986). Two separate dissents neither Wis.2d, 33, 561 (Abrahamson, dissenting); 45, 566 (Steinmetz, dissenting). dissenters' decisions reached Courts. Central Maine Power Co. Lebanon, 571 A.2d 1189 (Me.1990); People ex rel. Deukmejian Mendocino, Cal.3d 476, 204 Cal.Rptr. 897, 683 P.2d 1150 Given importance we certiorari. 498 ----, 750, 112 770 (1991). now reverse. II 9 Under Supremacy Clause, Const., Art. VI, cl. "interfere with, contrary congress, pursuance constitution" invalid. Gibbons Ogden, Wheat. 1, 211, 23 (1824) (Marshall, C.J.). ways established instance turn Ingersoll-Rand McClendon, 496 478, 474 Jones Rath Packing 430 519, 525, 97 1305, 1309-1310, 51 604 (1977). given "so pervasive room supplement it," "the touch[es] subject," "sought obtained" "obligations imposed" reveal authority. 1447 (1947). Pacific Gas & Electric Energy Resources Conservation Development Commission, 461 190, 203-204, 103 1713, 1721-1722, 75 752 (1983). "we start were Congress." Rice, 1152. 10 conflict. Such arises "compliance regulations impossibility," Florida Lime Avocado Growers, Inc. Paul, 373 132, 142-143, 83 1210, 1217, 248 (1963), "stands execution full objectives Congress," Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 399, 85 581 (1941). 11 It is, finally, axiomatic "for constitutionality analyzed way statewide laws." Hillsborough Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 707, 713, 105 2371, 2375, 714 (1985). See, City Burbank Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 624, 93 1854, 547 (1973). III 12 Applying principles, conclude explicitly, implicitly, virtue 13 recognized, however, purported find "which indicative" delineating "Authority States." 136v. key state: 14 "(a) federally registered device State, subchapter. 15 "(b) shall impose effect addition different subchapter." 16 Also significant, eyes, specify defining "State" "a District Columbia, Commonwealth Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, Trust Territory American Samoa." 136(aa). 17 "that [§§ ] alone evince[d] congress' deprive pesticides." 25, 557-558. nevertheless "possible" infer entities pre-empted; coupled legistlative history, "unmistakably demonstrates 28, 559. thus rested their history; have sufficed alone. suggestion absent critical sections, sufficiently justify States. respondents argued effect. hand, announced permitting agree standing alone, suffice But our view considered materials below necessary pre-empt. convey own. plainly "States" just silent reference silence, context, "clear purpose" applying municipalities, follow Rather, mean localities claim explicitly conferred conflicts At minimum, free usual principles 19 Properly read, tilts principle settled " 'governmental "created convenient agencies exercising entrusted them" [its] discretion.' 650 (1967), quoting Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 575, 84 1362, 1388-1389, 506 (1964), Hunter Pittsburgh, 207 161, 178, 28 40, 46, 52 151 (1907). "absolute discretion" option 20 Certainly textual basis exists. building contends delegated relies, undercut contention. mandates thereof, carrying out matter, section limit subchapter" authorized carry "nonregulatory" pre-empting require anomalous result actions state-delegated included Likewise, "or 136u(a)(1), "delegate [Act] personnel." If impliedly excludes unclear why one allow designation officials while altogether. 21 like courts attempts compensate inadequacies stressing history. 25-28, 558-559; Association, F.2d, 933-934. evidence source, centers meaning what 136v, ambiguous. House Agriculture Committee Report accompanying stated "rejected proposal grounds 50 Government should adequate number jurisdictions." H.R.Rep. 92-511, (1971). statement indicates unwillingness prevent delegating desire least statement, concededly goes further. Senate Forestry states outright "considered jurisdiction concurs Representatives." S.Rep. 92-838, (1972), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News pp. 3993, 4008. 22 Members disagreed. Commerce Committee, bill, observed "[w]hile [Senate] bill specifically regulating pesticides, report committee manner. Many meet own needs they often better able perceive regulators." 92-970, 27 4111. counter Report, amendment authorizing numerous other, unrelated proposals. rejected after negotiations Committees. 118 Cong.Rec. 32251 (1972); H.R.Conf.Rep. 92-1540, 33 3993. result, principal Committees subdivisions. important note, moreover, confined power None mentioned asserted text, far short establishing submission brief United expressing views Agency, enforcing FIFRA.4 24 particular, reject position courts, opened much smaller Care, 933-934; Control, F.Supp., 110-111; see also, Brief National Amici Curiae 6-16; Washington Legal Foundation Amicus 5-18. assumption, argued, viewed opening yet closed 25 reasoning shown ordinary canons construction delegation therefore redelegate undisturbed statutes government ample regulate. noted can plausibly contemplate precisely redelegation. self-limiting whole. scattered mention elsewhere here. complex 26 More importantly, inferred. place, inference. immediately following declares "[s]uch under" 136v(b). intended Taking premise, "sale use" superfluously add did "labeling packaging," doubly superfluous focus begin with. Monsanto, "comprehensive statute," 2867, resulting it." contrary, efforts addresses aspects control considerable detail, particular: classification, 136a; applicator certification, 136b; production facilities, 136e 136g; possible ban seizure misbranded fail requirements, 136k. These reflect goal strengthen insure followed practice. 2866-2867. certainly equate approval apply throughout Nation regional factors climate, population, geography, water supply. Whatever else supplant, particular. contrast implicitly fields, enhancement 'only permission, inspection, certified personnel intricate commands.' 634, 1860, Northwest Airlines Minnesota, 322 292, 303, 64 950, 956, 88 1283 (1944) (Jackson, concurring). consequently serve hand back usurped. acts ensure discussion doubtful exclude scope 136v(a)'s authorization, however be, type here fall within C 29 Finally, EPA, discern rely, he, theory "physical impossibility." 1217-1218. Instead, urges Each speculations. them convincing. 30 suggest sweeps exclusively broadly contends. gives concerned simply locally. suggests otherwise, establishes Federal-State administrative new program," raising specter gypsy moth hoards safely navigating thousands contradictory ineffective municipal regulations. 1-2. plain, "shall regulations." precludes independent oversight. regulations—unlike certification—do "program" addresses. 31 provides yield maintaining unfettered Once more, isolated passages themselves do 16, 4007. asserts allowing, large-scale crop infestation. moth, wreak havoc enact legislation preventing it. satisfied, done yet. IV 32 reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. 34 I Ante, preemption, understood restricting types (for makes sense restrict subdivisions) eminent authorize subdivisions). field-pre-emption question close one. selective "State thereof" rather usage pointed Part Court's today recognizes, ante, 606-607, Justices agreed me point, come Reports contained think entirely right tenor reports. Their mistake failing recognize how unreliable are—not genuine indicator predictor judicial construction. convenient, ignore 37 Consider resolved reports taken seriously: amend (H.R. 10729) reported September 1971. According Report: 38 "The 39 Had rejection specified, entertain speculation, 609, opposing direct conferral regulate, once excessive jurisdictions problem—that "50 Government" then becomes wanted picture, thought placed there. 40 Committee's passed November 9, 1971, transmittal referred Forestry, 7, 1972. confirms foregoing interpretation endorses disposition produces. 41 "[We have] Representatives. Clearly, fifty sufficient properly few, any, towns, counties, villages, financial wherewithal expert comparable Governments. extreme commerce, [136v], providing States, depriving all 16-17 4008 (emphasis added). 42 Clearer "directing" interpret found, direction binding effect, all. 43 more. floor, re-referred Commerce, July 19, plus proposals H.R. 10729, reconfirmed committees. said: "While 44 45 claims passage, explains, [were] subdivisions." 610. confess am practiced others science construing seems quite opposite offer 10729. acknowledges originating "states manner," proceeds ("Many etc.") questions existence desirability restriction power. policy, whose purpose, according report, "giv[e] imposed authorities." 27, supplemental opposed amendment, said pesticide," thereby "vitiat[ing]" earlier Report. pt. 46-47 4066. demonstrates, think, (as it) disagreed 10729 complete accord did, ought to. 46 course say anything whole thought. Assuming members three relevant subcommittees) adverted interpretive point here—which probably unrealistic assumption—and assuming unanimous agreement represent two-fifths Senate, one-tenth House. most unlikely many chamber pertinent voting bill—assuming (we sure) available vote. Those portions, though dominate today, constituted quarter-page 82-page half-page 74-page 46-page 73-page Supplemental minuscule total receiving (and presumably writing) during period question. least, vote (the proposal) changed supposed interpretation. majority policy; superfluous); blissfully ignorant dispute asking recommittal proposing amendments, being troublemaker; minorities (enough majority) respective reasons. knowing; indeed, knowing rational motive 47 All know sure here, House, pursuant procedures prescribed Constitution; transmitted President approved him, again Constitution, became denies communities significant self-protection, try give fair meaning, whatever various say—thereby affirming proposition prefer proceed. 48 believed, determined reports, commanded times over—not house, them. Today's reveals application, forensic device, invoked support ignored my mind infinitely honestly dispositive stop confusing 49 responds concurrence footnote, 610-612 4, asserting really reader judge. reply, assertion "practice utilizing reaches [our] past," 612 cites written none John Marshall himself, Wallace Parker, 680, 543 (1832). What neglects explain means practice history" authoritative content text—which object used factual statements Ohio "as record" 689, 690, permissible "under Ohio," ibid. recent relying material text. shocked Marshall. late 1897, acquiescence doctrine debates sources discover body." Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 290, 318, 540, 550, 1007. 1953, using fashion novel Jackson dismiss "psychoanalysis "weird endeavor." Utilities Comm'n, 345 295, 319, 73 706, 719, 1020 short, almost phenomenon century—and extensive phenomenon. Carro Brann, Use Legislative Histories Court: Statistical Analysis, Legis. 282 (1982); Wald, Some Observations History 1981 Term, 68 Iowa L.Rev. 195, 196-197 depressed predicting criticized "will future." prediction future accurate perception continuing reach[ing] nothing fear. population 400 500 persons, large Directory 1982-83, Respondents 4; Tr. Oral Arg. 12. 61.34(1) provides: "Except law, management property, finances, highways, streets, navigable waters, service, good order village, commercial benefit safety, welfare, convenience public, license, suppression, borrowing, taxation, assessment, appropriation, fine, imprisonment, means. hereby grants limited language." 61.34(5) "For villages largest measure self-government spirit article XI, 3, [Wisconsin] constitution declared chapter liberally construed privileges peace, prosperity inhabitants coalition unincorporated, nonprofit association individual businesses associations SCALIA's foray runs problems. For one, argues "out picture" rejecting observation jurisdictions. Post, 617. suppose "regulatory jurisdictions" meant derived grant. answer another. unequivocally pesticide. true, hardly dispositive. ambiguous reliance puts forward minimum realm meanings provision, fairly bear. Here prohibition, No matter purports so, take cover "flies" "mosquitoes", tell covers "ducks." agriculture 618-620. states, agrees this. "while regulating, matter." 90-970, (1972) went assert differences counterpart. attempting strike root problem changing Far showing rival, words body first, conceded disputed second, raised stakes seeking go way. prohibition doubt stood sides debate. propriety all, common inquiry benefits reviewing ignoring Chief put it, "[w]here labours design legislature, seizes every thing aid derived." Fisher Blight, Cranch 358, 386, 304 (1805). generally misleading jurists never employ faith Our precedents past. Peters 687-690, suspect likewise future.

Category: 9