## Facts

- Dow Agrosciences manufactured “Strongarm,” an EPA-registered herbicide regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
- The EPA-approved label recommended use on peanuts in “all peanut-growing areas.”
- Texas peanut farmers alleged Strongarm damaged their crops when used as directed in alkaline soils (pH at least 7.0) and that Dow knew or should have known of this risk but failed to warn.
- After providing notice of intent to sue, the farmers asserted state-law claims including strict liability, negligence, fraud, and breach of express warranty, all based on alleged crop damage.
- Dow sought declaratory relief that FIFRA expressly preempted the farmers’ claims; the farmers filed counterclaims under state law.
- The district court held most claims preempted under 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b), and the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the theory that any verdict inducing label changes imposed an impermissible state “requirement” for labeling.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve disagreement among courts about the scope of FIFRA preemption.

## Issues

1. Whether FIFRA § 136v(b), which bars state “requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from” federal requirements, preempts state common-law tort claims.
2. Whether the farmers’ specific theories (design defect, manufacturing defect, negligent testing, express warranty, fraud/misrepresentation, and failure to warn) impose preempted labeling requirements or permissible parallel duties.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that FIFRA § 136v(b) preempts only state-law requirements that qualify as requirements “for labeling or packaging” and that are “in addition to or different from” FIFRA’s requirements.
- The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s “inducement” approach that treated any claim prompting a label change as automatically preempted.
- Claims for defective design, defective manufacture, and negligent testing were not preempted because they do not impose labeling or packaging requirements.
- Breach of express warranty claims were not preempted because they enforce the manufacturer’s voluntary contractual commitments rather than state-imposed labeling duties.
- Failure-to-warn and fraud/misrepresentation claims required claim-by-claim analysis: they are preempted only to the extent they would impose additional or different label requirements; they are not preempted if they merely enforce standards that parallel FIFRA’s misbranding requirements.

## Legal Principles

- FIFRA § 136v(b) expressly preempts state-law labeling or packaging requirements only when they are “in addition to or different from” federal requirements.
- “Requirements” in an express preemption clause may include common-law duties as well as statutes and regulations, but preemption depends on the subject matter (labeling/packaging) and whether the state duty diverges from federal standards.
- Product-based claims (e.g., design defect, manufacturing defect, negligent testing) generally fall outside § 136v(b) because they are not labeling or packaging requirements.
- Express warranty claims are generally not “imposed by a State” for preemption purposes when they enforce a manufacturer’s voluntary undertakings.
- State-law claims that are “parallel” to FIFRA’s misbranding standards (e.g., prohibitions on false or misleading labeling or inadequate warnings as defined by federal law) are not preempted, even if they provide additional state remedies.

## Conclusion

FIFRA does not broadly displace state tort remedies for pesticide-related harm; it preempts only those state-law claims that would impose labeling or packaging duties different from or additional to FIFRA’s requirements, while allowing non-labeling claims and parallel misbranding-based theories to proceed.


Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005)