Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co.

Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co.

Opinion

 [*571]  [***413]  [**3327]    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  [**3328]  (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.

The Court's opinion in Monsanto [****8]  details the development of FIFRA from the licensing and labeling statute enacted in 1947 to the comprehensive regulatory statute of the  [***414]  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.

As a precondition for registration of a pesticide, manufacturers must submit research data to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the product's health, safety, and environmental effects.  The 1972 Act established data-sharing provisions intended to streamline pesticide registration procedures, increase competition, and avoid unnecessary duplication of data-generation costs. S. Rep. No. 92-838, pp. 72-73 (1972) (1972 S. Rep.). Some evidence suggests that before 1972 data submitted by one registrant  [*572]  had "as a matter of practice but without statutory authority, been considered by the Administrator to support the registration of the [****9]  same or a similar product by another registrant." Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., supra, at 1009, n. 14. Such registrations were colloquially known as "me too" or "follow-on" registrations. Section 3(c)(1)(D) of the 1972 Act provided statutory authority for the use of previously submitted data as well as a scheme for sharing the costs of data generation.

"In effect, the provision instituted a mandatory data-licensing scheme. The amount of compensation was to be negotiated by the parties, or, in the event negotiations failed, was to be determined by the EPA, subject to judicial review upon instigation of the original data submitter. The scope of the 1972 data-consideration provision, however, was limited, for any data designated as 'trade secrets or commercial or financial information' . . . could not be considered at all by EPA to support another registration unless the original submitter consented." Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., supra, at 992-993.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.