Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.
467 U.S. 986 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A company's trade secrets submitted to a federal agency are considered property under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. A government action affecting this property constitutes a taking only if it interferes with the owner's reasonable, investment-backed expectations of confidentiality, which are determined by the statutory scheme in place at the time of submission.
Facts:
- Monsanto Company is a chemical company that invents and develops new pesticides, a process requiring an investment of millions of dollars and many years of research.
- To obtain a federal registration to sell a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Monsanto must submit extensive health, safety, and environmental data to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
- Monsanto considers this submitted research data to be valuable trade secrets and takes stringent security measures to ensure its confidentiality.
- Before 1972, FIFRA was silent regarding the confidentiality and use of submitted data, though a general criminal statute, the Trade Secrets Act, prohibited disclosure by federal employees.
- From 1972 to 1978, amendments to FIFRA explicitly allowed data submitters to designate trade secrets and prohibited the EPA from using or disclosing such data to benefit a competitor without the submitter's consent.
- In 1978, Congress amended FIFRA again, establishing a new regime that allowed the EPA to publicly disclose some health and safety data and to use one company's data to evaluate a competitor's application in exchange for compensation, determined by binding arbitration.
Procedural Posture:
- Monsanto Company filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Monsanto sought a declaratory judgment that FIFRA's data-consideration and disclosure provisions were unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent their enforcement.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found for Monsanto, concluding that the provisions effected a taking of property for a private purpose without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
- The District Court permanently enjoined the EPA from implementing or enforcing the challenged sections of FIFRA.
- The EPA (represented by its Administrator, William Ruckelshaus) appealed the District Court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the data-consideration and data-disclosure provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which permit the EPA to use and disclose a registrant's trade-secret data, unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. The challenged provisions are not unconstitutional because for any taking of property that may occur, the taking is for a public use and an adequate remedy for just compensation is available to the owner under the Tucker Act. Intangible property, including trade secrets protected by state law, is protected by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. However, whether a governmental interference with that property constitutes a 'taking' depends on the extent to which the action frustrates the owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations. For data submitted after the 1978 amendments, Monsanto was on notice of the conditions for data use and disclosure and thus had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality beyond what the statute provided. For data submitted before 1972, the law was silent, and in a heavily regulated industry, there was no explicit guarantee of confidentiality to create a reasonable expectation. However, for data submitted between 1972 and 1978, FIFRA provided an explicit guarantee of confidentiality which created a reasonable, investment-backed expectation. If the EPA now uses or discloses that data under the 1978 rules, it would constitute a taking. This taking is for a legitimate public use—to streamline regulation and promote competition. Because a suit for compensation under the Tucker Act provides an adequate remedy, an injunction is not available, and the statutory scheme is not unconstitutional on its face.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice O'Connor
Yes, a public disclosure of pre-1972 data would effect a taking. The majority is wrong to conclude that Monsanto had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality for data submitted before 1972. The Trade Secrets Act, a general criminal statute prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets by federal employees, provided a firm basis for such an expectation. There is no reason an expectation of confidentiality can only be grounded in a statute that is physically adjacent to the regulations requiring data submission. Therefore, the public disclosure of pre-1972 data would frustrate a reasonable investment-backed expectation and constitute a taking. As for the internal agency use of that same pre-1972 data, the case should be remanded for further factual findings regarding industry expectations at the time.
Analysis:
This case is significant for confirming that intangible property, specifically trade secrets, is protected by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. It established the 'reasonable investment-backed expectation' as the critical factor in determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred in the context of data submitted to the government. The decision underscores that the legal and regulatory framework in place at the time of submission defines the scope of these expectations. Furthermore, it reinforces the principle that the availability of a post-taking compensation remedy, like a Tucker Act claim, can prevent a government program from being facially unconstitutional, even if its operation might result in a taking of property.
