## Facts

- Dinoseb, a registered herbicide, was used by Pacific Northwest growers and processors on crops including green peas and caneberries.
- The EPA initiated cancellation proceedings under FIFRA after developing serious safety concerns, particularly reproductive risks to exposed workers.
- Pending cancellation, the EPA issued an emergency nationwide suspension of dinoseb registrations under FIFRA § 6(c), finding suspension necessary to prevent an “imminent hazard.”
- Growers and processors sought a preliminary injunction in federal district court, alleging the nationwide suspension failed to consider regional circumstances and less restrictive alternatives.
- The district court partially stayed the suspension for certain Pacific Northwest uses for the season and also imposed additional court-created safety and use restrictions not contained in the EPA’s order.
- The EPA appealed; labor and environmental groups intervened opposing the injunction.

## Issues

1. What is the proper scope and standard of judicial review of an EPA emergency suspension under FIFRA § 6(c), including whether review is confined to the administrative record.
2. Whether the EPA’s “imminent hazard” determination supporting a nationwide suspension was lawful and supported by the record.
3. Whether the district court exceeded its authority by imposing additional pesticide-use and safety conditions beyond staying the EPA’s suspension.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that review of an emergency suspension proceeds on the EPA’s administrative record and is limited to determining whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
- The court upheld the EPA’s finding that dinoseb posed an “imminent hazard” based on evidence of serious reproductive risks.
- The court largely affirmed the preliminary injunction insofar as it partially stayed enforcement of the nationwide suspension for limited uses during the season, given serious questions about whether EPA adequately considered less drastic, more tailored approaches and the prospect of irreparable regional economic harm.
- The court reversed the portion of the injunction that imposed court-devised protective measures and restrictions, concluding the district court lacked authority to create its own regulatory regime.
- The case was remanded with instructions to modify the injunction consistent with these limits.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of an EPA emergency suspension under FIFRA is confined to the administrative record and applies a deferential substantial-evidence/arbitrary-and-capricious inquiry.
- An “imminent hazard” finding may rest on credible evidence of severe health risks; the agency need not await definitive proof before acting to prevent potentially irreversible harm.
- A preliminary injunction against federal regulatory action may issue under the Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale approach when serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply toward the movant, including where a single growing season may be lost.
- Courts may stay or set aside unlawful agency action but may not substitute their own detailed operational conditions for those entrusted by statute to the agency.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit sustained limited injunctive relief that temporarily narrowed the practical reach of the EPA’s dinoseb suspension for a specific season and region, but it held that a court reviewing FIFRA suspensions cannot impose its own pesticide-use conditions and must leave such regulatory choices to the EPA.


Love v. Thomas, 858 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1988)