![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of the United States
March 26, 1985, Argued ; July 1, 1985, Decided
[*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.
473 U.S. 568 *; 105 S. Ct. 3325 **; 87 L. Ed. 2d 409 ***; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 121 ****; 53 U.S.L.W. 5057; 15 ELR 20698; 22 ERC (BNA) 2033
THOMAS, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY v. UNION CARBIDE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS CO. ET AL.
Prior History: [****1] CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.
arbitration, registration, courts, public right, district court, follow-on, pesticide, submitter, plurality opinion, judicial review, disputes, judicial power, trade secret, state law, decisionmaker, plurality, parties, binding arbitration, data-consideration, regulatory scheme, private party, negotiation, tribunals, environmental, matters, tenure, ripe, amount of compensation, power of congress, private right
Business & Corporate Compliance, Environmental Law, Hazardous Wastes & Toxic Substances, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act, Civil Procedure, Sanctions, General Overview, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration, Pretrial Matters, Judicial Review, Pesticides, Governments, Agriculture & Food, Constitutional Law, Congressional Duties & Powers, Courts, Judges, The Judiciary, Separation of Powers, Constitutional Controls, Jurisdiction, Justiciability, Ripeness, Rationale for Ripeness, Case or Controversy, Ripeness, Congressional Limits, Mandatory ADR, Authority to Adjudicate, Legislation, Vagueness, Interpretation, Agency Adjudication, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Validity of ADR Methods