The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in Carson v. Monsanto Co., No. 21-10994, one of thousands of state-law personal injury suits alleging that Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup herbicide, failed to provide a label warning that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, can cause cancer. The U.S. Environmental …
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) food and labeling standards define foie gras as duck or goose liver “obtained exclusively from specially fed and fattened geese and ducks.” This centuries-old process, long used in France , involves “force feeding” geese and ducks to enlarge their livers. It is the only way to produce genuine foie gras. California, …
Law360 has published my sharply critical Expert Analysis of the amicus brief that the U.S. Solicitor General recently submitted to the Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Hardeman, No. 21-241. My analysis explains that – “From the perspective of product liability defense attorneys, the brief from the solicitor general is a transparently partisan, short-sighted effort to …
Justices Should Give Feds’ Roundup Amicus Little Weight Read More »
More than two decades ago, I stood before the Justices of the California Supreme Court and succeeded in persuading them that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts pesticide-related failure to warn claims. See Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Service, Inc., 22 Cal.4th 316 (Cal. 2000). Five years later, in Bates v. Dow AgroSciences, …
It’s Time For The Supreme Court To Revisit FIFRA Preemption Read More »
I today filed on behalf of the Atlantic Legal Foundation a petition-stage amicus brief supporting Petitioner Monsanto Company in Monsanto Co. v. Hardeman, No. 21-241. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) vests the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with exclusive authority to regulate the content of pesticide product labeling. FIFRA accomplishes this by expressly …
ALF Urges Supreme Court To Clarify Federal Preemption Of Pesticide Failure-To-Warn Suits Read More »
The Atlantic Legal Foundation has submitted an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) letter urging the California Supreme Court to grant the petition for review filed on August 31, 2020 by Monsanto Company in Johnson v. Monsanto, a bellwether case in which a former school groundskeeper claims he developed a form of cancer as a result …
Amicus Letter Explains That Federal Law Preempts Roundup® Product Liability Suit Read More »
The following case analysis was published in the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse blog on August 4, 2020. In the WLF Legal Pulse post EPA Finally Flexes Some Preemption Muscle, I explained that last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) repudiated California’s attempt, under the State’s Proposition 65 right-to-know law, to require manufacturers of glyphosate weed-control products …
California’s Attorney General just doesn’t get it. Maybe he’s been watching too many of those slick infomercials trolling for Roundup® “victims.” In 1972 Congress enacted a law—the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sole and exclusive authority to regulate the content of pesticide product labeling. FIFRA vests EPA …
California Can’t Usurp USEPA’s Authority Over Roundup® Labeling Read More »
Note: On August 26, 2019, the Washington Legal Foundation published this article as part of its Legal Pulse blog. FIFRA, the federal pesticide statute, gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exclusive authority to regulate the content of pesticide labeling, including health & safety warnings. Section 24(b) unequivocally declares that a “State shall not impose . …
On May 14, the Supreme Court held in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association that the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) is unconstitutional. The Court ruled that PASPA’s prohibition against States authorizing sports betting violates the “anticommandeering principle,” which precludes Congress from directing States to take, or refrain from taking, particular legislative …
Supreme Court’s Sports Betting Decision Reveals Hidden Preemption Requirement Read More »
