Bates v. Dow AgroSciences

Supreme Court Signals Shift Away from Dismissing State Tort Lawsuits

Supreme Court Decision | AAJ's Amicus Curiae Brief

No. 03-388, U.S. Supreme Court (filed July 30, 2004)

In a highly significant opinion, on April 27 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Bates v. Dow AgroSciences, LLC., and signaled a shift away from a trend in federal courts to dismiss state tort lawsuits whenever an applicable federal regulatory statute preempts state “requirements.”

Peanuts, Pesticides, & Preemption: A History of Bates

Plaintiffs are Texas peanut farmers who sprayed Dow’s weed killer “Strongarm” on their plants as recommended by the label. It didn’t get rid of the weeds and it stunted the growth of the peanut plants. The farmers sued under a variety of state law causes of action, alleging that Dow knew “Strongarm” should not be used in west Texas soil. The trial judge granted summary judgment to Dow, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the state lawsuits were barred by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which forbids states to impose "requirements for labeling or packaging” beyond those imposed by the EPA under the law. A victory for the farmers would induce Dow to change its label, which would yield the same result as a state regulatory requirement for a label change.

A Victory for the Farmers

The Supreme Court reversed in a unanimous decision, with Justices Scalia and Thomas concurring in the judgment. Writing for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the decision below was an overly broad interpretation of it prior preemption cases. A manufacturer held liable in a products liability lawsuit may have an incentive to change its product to avoid future tort awards. However, a damages verdict “that merely motivates an optional decision does not qualify as a requirement.”

Although a general tort duty, such as to design reasonably safe products, may be a state requirement, it is not specifically aimed at “labeling or packaging.” In addition, the Court held that where Congress provided no remedy for those harmed by violation of federal FIFRA requirements, nothing precludes the states from providing their own state law remedies.

Why It Matters

When Congress establishes federal agency regulation, it frequently preempts state “requirements” that are different or in addition to the federal requirements. Most often, Congress intended to avoid a crazy-quilt of differing state regulations. In Bates, the Court halts the practice in the lower federal courts of broadly extending this preemption to cut off injury claims by the very people whom Congress intended the federal regulations to protect.

AAJ filed an amicus brief, written by member RC Westmoreland, which you can read here.

The full text of the decision is also available online.

Decision Merits National Media Attention

"In unusually pointed terms, the majority rejected the Bush administration's view that lawsuits claiming manufacturers negligently designed, tested or manufactured their products are pre-empted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the federal law that governs the registration and labeling of these products." – "Supreme Court Says Farmers May Sue in State Courts," New York Times, 4/27/2005

"The ruling reinstates the farmers' claim that Dow essentially failed to warn of possible risks. A lower court had dismissed the claims, reasoning that federal law barred states from imposing labeling requirements on pesticides and herbicides other than those set by the Environmental Protection Agency." – "Court: Farmers Can Sue Pesticide Makers," Associated Press, 4/27/2005

Updated April 2005