LEXSEE 544 U.S. 431
DENNIS BATES, et al., Petitioners v. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
544 U.S. 431
125 S. Ct. 1788
161 L. Ed. 2d 687
2005 U.S. LEXIS
73 U.S.L.W. 4311
60 ERC (BNA) 1129
CCH Prod. Liab. Rep.
35 ELR 20087
18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 255
January 10, 2005, Argued
April 27, 2005, Decided
ON WRIT OF CERTI-
ORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
Dow Agrosciences L.L.C. v. Bates, 332 F.3d
323, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12012 (5th Cir.
Vacated and remanded.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act, as amended
§§ 136 et seq.)
, held not to pre-empt at least
some state-law claims, by Texas peanut farm-
ers, for damages from particular pesticide's al-
legedly injuring farmers' crops.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Ro-
denticide Act, as amended (FIFRA) (
§§ 136 et seq.
), generally provides for the fed-
eral regulation of covered pesticides, including
registration and labeling requirements.
7 U.S.C.S. § 136v(a)
authorizes some regula-
tion of pesticides by a state, a pre-emption pro-
7 U.S.C.S. § 136v(b)
, says that, "Such
State shall not impose or continue in effect any
requirements for labeling or packaging in addi-
tion to or different from those required under
A particular pesticide had been registered
by the pesticide's manufacturer with the Envir-
onmental Protection Agency (EPA), pur-
portedly pursuant to the latter's authority under
Some Texas peanut farmers alleged
that in the 2000 growing season, their crops had
been severely damaged by the application of
The manufacturer filed a declar-
atory-judgment action in a Federal District
Court, asserting that the farmers' claims were
expressly or impliedly pre-empted by FIFRA.
The farmers brought a variety of counterclaims
under state law.
However, the District Court
granted a motion by the manufacturer for sum-
mary judgment, as the court (1) rejected one
claim on state-law grounds, and (2) dismissed
the remainder as expressly pre-empted by
The United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, in affirming, (1) expressed the
pre-empted any state-law