Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

Case Date: 01/10/2005
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

A group of peanut farmers in Texas threatened to sue Dow Agrosciences in state court for damages caused by one of Dow's herbicides. The farmers alleged Dow violated Texas labeling requirements. Dow asked a federal district court to rule the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted and therefore prohibited the farmers' state law claims. The district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled FIFRA expressly prohibited additional state labeling requirements such as Texas'.

Question 

Does the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempt farmers' state tort claims alleging that Dow's herbicide damaged crops?

Argument Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion  Decision: 7 votes for Bates, 2 vote(s) against Legal provision: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the peanut farmers could sue Dow in state court. The Court reasoned that FIFRA preempts only state-law "requirements for labeling or packaging." The peanut farmers' defective manufacture, negligent testing, and breach of warranty claims were based on common-law and did not necessarily require that Dow label or package products in a particular way. The farmers' fraud and negligent-failure to warn claims, by contrast, were based on common-law rules that qualified as "requirements for labeling or packaging." However, FIFRA preempted only state-law labeling requirements" that were "in addition to or different from" FIFRA's labeling standards. The Court sent back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the question whether Texas law governing fraud and failure-to-warn claims was parallel to FIFRA.