Dennis Bates, et al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (544 U.S. 431)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 27, 2005 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 544 U.S. 431 · 125 S. Ct. 1788
- Decided
- April 27, 2005
- Term
- October Term 2004
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners are 29 Texas peanut farmers who allege that in the 2000 growing season their crops were severely damaged by the application of respondent’s newly marketed pesticide named “Strongarm.” The question presented is whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U. S. C. § 136 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. II), pre-empts their state-law claims for damages. HH Pursuant to its authority under FIFRA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conditionally registered Strongarm on March 8, 2000, thereby granting respondent (Dow) permission to sell this pesticide — a weed killer — in the United States. Dow obtained this registration in time to market Strongarm to Texas farmers, who normally plant their peanut crops around May 1. According to petitioners — whose version of the facts we assume to be true at this stage — Dow knew, or should have known, that Strongarm would stunt the growth of peanuts in soils with pH levels of 7.0 or greater. Nevertheless, Strongarm’s label stated, “Use of Strongarm is recommended in all areas where peanuts are grown,” App. 108, and Dow’s agents made equivalent representations in their sales pitches to petitioners. When petitioners applied Strongarm on their farms — whose soils have pH levels of 7.2 or higher, as is typical in western Texas — the pesticide severely…
Excerpt of a 41,713-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.