ELR Citation: ELR 20087
No(s). 03-388 (U.S. Apr 27, 2005)

The U.S. Supreme Court held that §136v(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not preclude states from providing a remedy to farmers and others who are injured as a result of a manufacturer's violation of FIFRA's labeling requirement. FIFRA §136v(b) preempts any statutory or common-law rule that would impose a labeling requirement that diverges from those set out in FIFRA and its implementing regulations. It does not preempt a state-law requirement that is equivalent to, and fully consistent with, FIFRA's labeling standards. Although FIFRA does not provide a federal remedy to those injured as a result of a manufacturer's violation of FIFRA's labeling requirements, nothing in §136v(b) precludes states from providing such a remedy. Because the Court did not receive sufficient briefing on whether the Texas law governing the farmers' fraud and failure-to-warn claims is equivalent to FIFRA's misbranding standards and any relevant regulations, the case was remanded. Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C.J., and O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Scalia, J., joined.