The court holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts failure to warn claims brought by the purchasers of a container of chlorine tablets, but that FIFRA does not preempt their defective packaging and product design claims. The court first holds that the purch...
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) represent federal regulatory regimes for protecting the environment. Although each statute initially places administrative responsibility in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each encourages states, to varying degrees, to take primary responsibility for implementing the statutory regime.
In Environmental Federalism Part 1: The History of Overfiling Under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA Prior to Harmon, Smithfield, and CLEAN, the history of judicial and administrative decisions relating to overfiling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) was analyzed. The history showed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with limited exceptions, generally was understood to have overfiling authority under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA. The limited exceptions focused on two situations.
The court affirms a district court's grant of summary judgment on several state-law tort claims in favor of pesticide companies whose products allegedly caused a newborn's multiple birth defects. The district court granted summary judgment because the evidence showed that the product at issue had no...
The court vacates a district court's dismissal of a community association's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) claims against the federal government in connection with a highway project in Tennessee. The court first holds that th...
The court holds that although the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts a consumer's labeling claims, it does not preempt her defective packaging claim. The consumer brought suit against a pool company after she suffered burning sensations in her lungs and throat and h...
The quest by law abiding pesticide registrants for relief from illegally registered pesticides has taken a new turn. Tacitly acknowledging the futility of urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to initiate enforcement action against bad actors, registrants are now, in epidemic proportion, taking their case to EPA in the form of filing administrative petitions to revoke and/or cancel Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registrations issued to competitors and alleged to be obtained illegally.
New rules are emerging to change the way the government makes decisions about cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). These changes have altered Superfund decisionmaking fundamentally and irrevocably, requiring the government to reach for new levels of accountability, rationality, and consistency. Central to the government's ability to meet this challenge is the way in which it makes and explains decisions about acceptable risks and required levels of cleanup.
Editors' Summary: Since 1910, the federal government has played a role in regulating pesticides. At first, the motive was to fight fraud, but as pesticides became more sophisticated and as environmental concerns grew, the government's regulatory efforts became more comprehensive. Now, near the dawn of bioengineered pesticides, with society confronting and reevaluating environmental risks, and with agencies facing fiscal challenges, pesticide regulation continues to evolve. It is a field of concern to the pesticide industry, of course, but in U.S.
The court holds that a cleaning product company may pursue its Lanham Act claims against a competitor for allegedly making false and misleading representations on its product label. The court first holds that the district court properly dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) the company's claim th...