Find Court Cases > Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms

Case Date: 04/27/2010
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

Geertson Seed Farms ("Geertson") and Trask Family Seeds ("Trask") sought an injunction against Monsanto Company ("Monsanto") in a California federal district court. Geertson and Trask feared that the wide-scale sale of a new Monsanto alfalfa variety, resistant to one of the company's herbicides, would lead to cross-pollination with Geertson's and Trask's conventional alfalfa variety and thereby lead to its disappearance. The district court granted the injunction pending an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") about the effect of Monsanto's new alfalfa variety.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed holding that the injunction was appropriate and that an evidentiary hearing was not required before the issuance of the injunction.

Read the Briefs for this Case
  • Brief of American Farm Bureau Federation, Biotechnology Industry Organization, National Alfalfa And Forage Alliance, American Seed Trade Association, National Cotton Council, National Potato Council, American Soybean Association, And National Association
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Home Builders, And Croplife America In Support of Petitioners
  • Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation In Support of Petitioners
  • Brief of Washington Legal Foundation And Allied Educational Foundation as Amici Curiae In Support of Petitioners
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Cropp Cooperative; Montana Organic Association; National Cooperative Grocers’ Association; National Organic Coalition; Organic Farming Research Foundation; Organic Seed Alliance; Organic Seed Growers And Trade Association; Organic Tr
  • Brief for Amici Curiae Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the United States, And the Center for Biological Diversity In Support of Respondents
  • Brief for Amici Curiae Natural Resources Defense Council, Prof. Craig N. Johnston, Prof. Michael C. Blumm, Prof. David W. Case, Prof. Jamison E. Colburn, Prof. William F. Funk, Prof. David K. Mears, Prof. Patrick a. Parenteau, Prof. John T. Parry, Prof. M
  • Brief for Amici Curiae Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for Responsible Genetics, Dr. Steven R. Radosevich, Dr. Paul E. Arriola, Dr. John Fagan, Dr. E. Ann Clark, Dr. Don M. Huber, And Caroline Cox In Support of Geertson Respondents
    • Question 

    1) Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that the plaintiffs are exempt from showing a "likelihood of irreparable harm" to obtain an injunction?

    2) Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a district court may enter an injunction without conducting an evidentiary hearing?

    Argument Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion  Decision: 7 votes for Monsanto Co., 1 vote(s) against Legal provision:

    No. Yes. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive relief. However, the Court further held that the district court abused its discretion when it entered an injunction absent the completed EIS. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that no factor favoring the imposition of an injunction yet existed.

    Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He argued that the district court's findings of fact all supported the imposition of an injunction: (1) the new alfalfa variety could contaminate other plants, (2) contamination could take place even in a controlled setting, (3) the relevant regulator has limited ability to control or limit limitations on planting, and (4) genetic contamination could decimate farmers' livelihoods all supported.