Thomas, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. et al. (473 U.S. 568)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided July 1, 1985 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 473 U.S. 568 · 105 S. Ct. 3325
- Decided
- July 1, 1985
- Term
- October Term 1984
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice O'Connor
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires the Court to revisit the data-consideration provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 61 Stat. 163, as amended, 7 U. S. C. §136 et seq., which was considered last Term in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986 (1984). Monsanto examined whether FIFRA’s data-consideration provision effects an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In this case we address whether Article III of the Constitution prohibits Congress from selecting binding arbitration with only limited judicial review as the mechanism for resolving disputes among participants in FIFRA’s pesticide registration scheme. We conclude it does not and reverse the judgment below. H-i The Court’s opinion in Monsanto details the development of FIFRA from the licensing and labeling statute enacted in 1947 to the comprehensive regulatory statute of the present. This case, like Monsanto, concerns the most recent amendment to FIFRA, the Federal Pesticide Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 819 (1978 Act), which sought to correct problems created by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 973 (1972 Act), itself a major revision of prior law. See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., supra, at 991-992. A As a precondition for registration of a pesticide, manufacturers must submit research data to the…
Excerpt of a 74,988-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.