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 . […]
EPA Finally Flexes Some Preemption Muscle Read More »
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 »
Federal preemption of state and local law is a legal concept that is important to every producer and user of pesticides and other federally regulated products. Larry Ebner has been deeply involved in federal preemption issues for more than 30 years. His article, “Preemption 101,” published by the National Pest Management Association in the January-February
Under FIFRA, the federal pesticide law, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies both have authority to regulate the sale and use of agricultural, industrial, structural, and consumer pesticides, but only EPA can regulate the content and format of nationally uniform pesticide product labeling. Emboldened by a 1991 Supreme Court decision, and despite state-imposed preemption
It’s Time To Fix FIFRA Preemption Read More »
FIFRA is the comprehensive federal statute that for the past 70 years has regulated “pesticides”—a term which encompasses a broad range of agricultural, professional, industrial, and consumer pest control products. One of the most persistent as well as hotly contested areas of pesticide regulation involves the subject of “preemption”—the supremacy of federal law over
Is It Finally Time To Fix FIFRA Preemption? Read More »
Subrogation of insureds’ third-party claims is not a subject that excites too many lawyers. But in Coventry Health Care of Missouri Inc. v. Nevils, No. 16-149, decided on April 18, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a subrogation-related opinion that will be of interest to anyone who tracks the Court’s federal preemption jurisprudence. In particular, the
A Closer Look At “Preemptive” Federal Contract Terms Read More »
The only thing predictable about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on federal preemption — a subject that strikes at the heart of federalism — is the odd way that the Justices spell “pre-emption.” While the Court’s implied preemption (field preemption and conflict preemption) case law is particularly difficult to reconcile, the Court in recent years
Can Federal Contract Requirements Preempt State Law? Read More »
What do prescription drugs, motor boats, pesticides, automobiles, medical devices, locomotives, cigarettes, vaccines, and oil tankers have in common? During the past 25 years, each has been the subject of at least one Supreme Court opinion concerning federal preemption of state-law product liability claims. No uniform rule has emerged from those opinions (e.g., there is
Supreme Court Punts On Another Federal Preemption Product-Liability Conundrum Read More »
Every first-year law student learns the taxonomy of federal preemption principles: Although the Supreme Court’s Supremacy Clause cases frequently rely on this preemption lexicon, the Court long ago indicated that these categories are not “rigidly distinct.” English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 79 n.5 (1990). The Court’s April 19, 2016 opinion in Hughes
Is It Express? Is It Implied? Is It Preempted? Read More »
Federal preemption aficionados will find today’s seemingly ho-hum Supreme Court decision in Gobielle v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. to be of considerable interest. The Court held that ERISA expressly preempts a Vermont statute requiring disclosure of ERISA-regulated health care plan payment information. According to Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, ERISA “contains what may be the most
Can Congress Go Too Far in Preempting State Law ? Read More »
