Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
561 U.S. ____ (2010) (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is not automatically granted for a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A court must apply the traditional four-factor test for permanent injunctions and abuses its discretion by issuing an injunction that is broader than necessary to remedy the specific harm shown, such as one that prohibits a federal agency from considering all possible forms of partial deregulation.
Facts:
- Monsanto Company developed Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA), a variety of alfalfa genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate.
- The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a division of the USDA, initially classified RRA as a 'regulated article' under the Plant Protection Act.
- In 2004, Monsanto and co-petitioner Forage Genetics International (FGI) petitioned APHIS for nonregulated status for two strains of RRA.
- APHIS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), but not a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to evaluate the request.
- After a public comment period, APHIS issued a 'Finding of No Significant Impact' and fully deregulated RRA, deciding an EIS was unnecessary.
- Following the deregulation, over 3,000 farmers in 48 states planted an estimated 220,000 acres of RRA over an approximately two-year period.
Procedural Posture:
- Geertson Seed Farms and other parties (respondents) filed suit against the Secretary of Agriculture in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging APHIS's decision to deregulate RRA.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the respondents, finding APHIS had violated NEPA by failing to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- In the remedial phase, the District Court rejected a proposal from APHIS for a partial deregulation subject to certain conditions.
- The District Court vacated APHIS's deregulation decision and entered a permanent injunction prohibiting almost all future planting of RRA and ordering APHIS not to act on the deregulation petition, even in part, until an EIS was completed.
- The Government, Monsanto, and FGI (petitioners) appealed the scope of the permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's injunction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by issuing a nationwide permanent injunction that prohibits all future planting of a genetically engineered crop and bars a federal agency from considering even a partial deregulation as a remedy for the agency's violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
Yes. A district court abuses its discretion by issuing an injunction that is broader than necessary to address the identified harm. The traditional four-factor test for a permanent injunction must be satisfied, and there is no presumption that an injunction is the proper remedy for a NEPA violation. Here, the district court's injunction was overly broad because it enjoined APHIS from pursuing any form of partial deregulation, no matter how limited or conditioned, without first showing that any such partial deregulation would cause irreparable injury. The possibility of future harm from a hypothetical partial deregulation is too speculative to support such a sweeping, preemptive injunction, especially when aggrieved parties could challenge a specific partial deregulation order if and when one is issued.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction. Given the critical findings of fact—that RRA can contaminate other plants, that contamination had already occurred in controlled settings, that APHIS has limited ability to enforce restrictions, and that contamination could devastate the alfalfa market—the court acted reasonably to preserve the status quo. The District Court was well within its broad equitable powers to conclude that any deregulation of RRA, even a partial one, posed a significant environmental risk that required a full EIS. The court reasonably crafted a remedy that balanced the harms by grandfathering in farmers who had already planted RRA while preventing further planting until the environmental risks could be fully studied, a cautious approach consistent with the principles of NEPA.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the standard for granting injunctive relief for NEPA violations, explicitly rejecting the Ninth Circuit's previous approach that presumed an injunction was appropriate in most cases. It solidifies the principle from Winter v. NRDC that the traditional, stringent four-factor test for injunctions applies in the environmental context, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to obtain sweeping injunctions against agency actions. The ruling emphasizes judicial restraint, requiring courts to issue remedies that are narrowly tailored to the specific harm proven, rather than preemptively blocking all possible future actions an agency might take to cure a procedural defect.
Unlock the full brief for Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms