## Facts

- Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) is genetically engineered to tolerate the herbicide Roundup.
- Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA) and APHIS regulations, genetically engineered plants are treated as regulated articles unless APHIS grants nonregulated status, which may be granted in whole or in part.
- In 2005, APHIS granted RRA nonregulated status after preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) and finding no significant environmental impact, without completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- Conventional alfalfa growers and environmental organizations sued, alleging that APHIS violated NEPA by deregulating RRA without first preparing an EIS.
- The district court held that APHIS violated NEPA, vacated the deregulation decision, and issued a nationwide permanent injunction that (i) barred APHIS from deregulating RRA in whole or in part pending completion of an EIS and (ii) prohibited nearly all future planting of RRA during the EIS process.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the scope of relief, not whether APHIS violated NEPA.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief based on risk of gene flow and related economic harms.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by issuing a nationwide injunction barring planting of RRA pending an EIS.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by enjoining APHIS from considering or implementing partial deregulation pending completion of an EIS.

## Decision

- The Court held that plaintiffs had standing based on a concrete risk of cross-pollination and associated economic and environmental harms.
- The Court reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion by prohibiting APHIS from effecting partial deregulation and by broadly barring planting pending completion of an EIS.
- The Court ruled that a NEPA violation does not justify injunctive relief without applying the traditional four-factor test for a permanent injunction, including proof of irreparable injury.
- The Court concluded the asserted harms from potential limited, conditional plantings under a partial deregulation regime were too speculative on the record to support the sweeping injunction.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy the traditional four-factor test: irreparable injury, inadequacy of legal remedies, balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.
- NEPA is procedural and does not mandate particular substantive outcomes; a NEPA violation does not warrant a categorical presumption of injunctive relief.
- Vacatur of an unlawful agency action may remedy a NEPA violation without a separate nationwide ban on activity, especially where narrower, conditional regulatory measures are possible.
- Where the governing statute and regulations allow partial approval (here, partial deregulation), courts should not use NEPA remedies to foreclose the agency’s lawful discretion to consider conditional interim measures, subject to later judicial review.
- Environmental and economic risks from likely gene flow can support standing, but standing alone does not establish entitlement to injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized standing for growers alleging risk of genetic contamination but limited NEPA remedies by requiring application of the traditional injunction factors and rejecting an automatic nationwide planting ban; it also confirmed that APHIS may consider partial deregulation while completing an EIS.


Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010)