Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms

Last updated

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 27, 2010
Decided June 21, 2010
Full case nameMonsanto Co., et al. v. Geertson Seed Farms, et al.
Docket no. 09-475
Citations561 U.S. 139 ( more )
130 S. Ct. 2743; 177 L. Ed. 2d 461
Case history
PriorGeertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 570 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 558 U.S. 1142(2010).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor
DissentStevens
Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
National Environmental Policy Act; Plant Protection Act

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. [1] The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold. [2] [3]

Contents

In 2005 the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) deregulated Monsanto's Roundup-ready alfalfa (RRA) based on an Environmental Assessment (EA) of Monsanto's RRA. [4] In 2006, Geertson Seed Farm and others filed suit in a California district court against APHIS' deregulation of RRA. [5] The district court disallowed APHIS' deregulation of RRA and issued an injunction against any new planting of RRA pending the preparation of a much more extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). [6] The court also refused to allow a partial deregulation. [1]

After losing an appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, [7] Monsanto and others appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. In 2010 the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision to bar partial deregulation of RRA pending completion of the EIS. They stated that, before a court disallow a partial deregulation, a plaintiff must show that it has suffered irreparable injury. "The District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency’s completion of its detailed environmental review." [1] The Supreme court did not consider the district court's ruling disallowing RRA's deregulation and consequently RRA was still a regulated crop waiting for APHIS' completion of an EIS. [1] At the time, both sides claimed victory. [8] This was the first ruling of the United States Supreme Court on genetically engineered crops. [2]

Background

As of 2010, alfalfa is the 4th largest cash crop and grows on approximately 20 million acres (81,000 km2) of land throughout the United States. This crop is grown for two primary purposes; hay for livestock consumption and seed for future stock. [5] Since alfalfa undergoes open pollination, many farmers that grow organic and commercial alfalfa were concerned about the potential for cross-pollination occurring between the genetically modified alfalfa and non-genetically modified alfalfa.

Alfalfa seeds Alfalfa seeds.jpg
Alfalfa seeds

APHIS, a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture, has the right to regulate any organism and product that is altered or created by genetic engineering. They use the precautionary standard when addressing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs are classified as plant pests under the Plant Protection Act (PPA) and are therefore regulated articles. Anyone can choose to petition the regulated status of a GMO. APHIS is then required to perform an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If, in an Environmental Assessment (EA), no significant environmental impact is found, then a full EIS is not required. [1]

The petitioner, Monsanto, is the owner and licensor of the intellectual property rights to RRA, and licenses the technology to Forage Genetics, developer of the Roundup Ready alfalfa seed. In April, 2004, Monsanto petitioned APHIS for deregulation of RRA. APHIS has three options: [9]

  1. Take no action
  2. Completely deregulate, requires a finding of "no significant impact"
  3. Partially deregulate RRA, by imposing geographical restrictions

In 2005, APHIS prepared a draft Environmental Assessment and allowed for public comments. Of the total 663 comments only 137 were supportive of the APHIS decision to deregulate RRA. The 537 opponents were mainly organic and conventional farmers who feared that cross-pollination would occur and would have detrimental effects on the alfalfa market. [9] APHIS released its EA, finding that RRA would not have any significant adverse impact on the environment. APHIS found that alfalfa is pollinated by bees and that pollination has been documented to occur up to 2 miles (3.2 km) from a pollen source. [9] Therefore, it was highly unlikely RRA would have a significant impact on non-GMO/organic farms. In February 2006, plaintiffs (see parties below) filed suit stating that APHIS violated NEPA. Subsequently, the district court ruled that APHIS had failed to take a "hard look" at RRA and its potential for genetic contamination. [9] Monsanto and Forage Genetics argued that many farmers had already purchased and planted or planned to plant RRA seeds for the new harvest. In order to allow the planting of seed already purchased, the court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the planting and sale of RRA after March 30, 2007, pending a permanent injunction. [9] In April 2007 the permanent injunction was granted. In 2008 Monsanto and APHIS appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the decision of the district court. The defendants appealed, and on April 27, 2010 this case was argued in front of the United States Supreme Court.

Parties

This case arose from the 2005 decision made by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). APHIS ( the defendant) performs a variety of services and is tasked with both protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health and regulating genetically modified organisms. APHIS has the authority to regulate any genetically engineered products that are plant pests or believed to be plant pests. [10] Monsanto ( the defendant-intervenors), is a corporation that manufactures several different chemicals, including pesticides and herbicides. A problem arose when Monsanto applied for deregulation of two specific lines of its Roundup Ready Alfalfa. APHIS responded favorably to Monsanto's request, but the deregulation was put on hold when Geertson Seed Farms (an Oregon Company), Trask Family Seeds (a South Dakota business) and other environmental groups sought to permanently enjoin APHIS from deregulating RRA until a final Environmental Impact Statement was completed.

Granting of certiorari

Certiorari was granted January 15, 2010. [11]

Issues

The Supreme Court limited its inquiry to whether the lower court had abused its discretion. Its analysis turned on the following questions: [1]

  1. Was Geertson exempt from having to show a likelihood of irreparable harm in order to obtain an injunction?
  2. Did the District Court improperly grant the injunction without holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts?
  3. Did the court of appeals incorrectly affirm the injunction prior to the "remote possibility of reparable harm" standard articulated in Winter v. NRDC?

It was noted that no party challenged the fact that APHIS had violated NEPA and that vacating the deregulation was within the District Court's discretion. [1]

Decision

Standing

1. Respondents (Geertson) have standing to seek injunctive relief, and petitioners (Monsanto) have standing to seek this Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit’s judgment affirming the entry of such relief. [1] 

  (a) The Court held that Monsanto satisfied all three Article III requirements for standing to seek review of the lower court decision.   (b) The Court affirmed the District Court's finding that Geertson had established a reasonable probability that their conventional alfalfa crops would be infected with the engineered Roundup Ready gene if RRA were completely deregulated.

2. The District Court abused its discretion by enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency’s completion of its detailed environmental review. [1] 

  (a) The Court assumes that the District Court acted lawfully in vacating the agency’s decision to completely deregulate RRA, but addresses whether it overreached its authority by granting a nationwide injunction pending completion of the EIS process.   (b) Geertson did not satisfy the four-factor test for a permanent injunction articulated in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC.   (c) None of the four factors justified the District Court's decision prohibiting APHIS from "partially" deregulating RRA until completion of the EIS.   (d) A nationwide injunction was too drastic a remedy given the facts and the District Court's refusal to consider partial deregulation.

District Court's Injunction

The Supreme Court stated that the District Court only considered a complete deregulation of RRA pending the completion of an EIS by APHIS. The four-factor test for granting a permanent injunction:

  1. The plaintiff has to have suffered an irreparable injury.
  2. The remedies available by law are inadequate to compensate for that injury.
  3. The court needs to consider the balance of hardship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
  4. The public interest would not be harmed by this permanent injunction. [1]

The Supreme Court ruled that the District Court erred by imposing a nationwide injunction, banning APHIS from partially deregulating RRA because all four factors could not be met, particularly, the irreparable injury factor. It was also held that a NEPA violation does not warrant automatic injunctive relief. [1]

The Supreme Court also stated that if a partial deregulation presented further danger to the respondents, they may file another suit for injunctive relief. And the respondents could not prove that partial deregulation would cause irreparable harm. [1]

In addition, the Supreme Court found that the District Court further erred in issuing injunctive relief because it preempted APHIS' ability to enact a partial deregulation that may not pose any appreciable risk of environmental harm. [1] It was also held that because the District Court did not consider the use of a less extraordinary measure to relieve the injury claimed by Geertson, the injunction was inappropriate. [1] The second factor, that there must be no other option available to the court to remedy the injury, could not be met because the vacatur would have prevented the complete deregulation.

Dissent

In his dissent, Stevens wrote that the majority decision was based on an incorrect understanding of the District Court decision, namely, an understanding that "the District Court enjoined APHIS from partially deregulating RRA in any sense" and in doing so, the District Court had exceeded its authority. [1] Stevens did not accept that reading, finding that the District Court's decision addressed "only (1) total deregulation orders of the kind that spawned this lawsuit, and (2) the particular partial deregulation order proposed to the court by APHIS." The majority's understanding and its implications were not the subject of briefs nor extended arguments, and Stevens therefore dissented because "the key legal premise on which the Court decides this case was never adequately presented. Of course, this is not standard — or sound — judicial practice.... Today’s decision illustrates why, for it is quite unclear whether the Court’s premise is correct, and the Court has put itself in the position of deciding legal issues without the aid of briefing." [1]

In Stevens' dissent, he maintained that the injunction was warranted because there was a clear danger that cross-pollination could happen, even in controlled settings, and that APHIS's ability to regulate and prevent this contamination was limited. [1] [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sugar beet</span> Plant grown commercially for sugar production

A sugar beet is a plant whose root contains a high concentration of sucrose and which is grown commercially for sugar production. In plant breeding, it is known as the Altissima cultivar group of the common beet. Together with other beet cultivars, such as beetroot and chard, it belongs to the subspecies Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris. Its closest wild relative is the sea beet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alfalfa</span> Perennial flowering plant in the legume family Fabaceae

Alfalfa, also called lucerne, is a perennial flowering plant in the legume family Fabaceae. It is cultivated as an important forage crop in many countries around the world. It is used for grazing, hay, and silage, as well as a green manure and cover crop. The name alfalfa is used in North America. The name lucerne is more commonly used in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. The plant superficially resembles clover, especially while young, when trifoliate leaves comprising round leaflets predominate. Later in maturity, leaflets are elongated. It has clusters of small purple flowers followed by fruits spiralled in two to three turns containing 10–20 seeds. Alfalfa is native to warmer temperate climates. It has been cultivated as livestock fodder since at least the era of the ancient Greeks and Romans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Environmental Policy Act</span> United States federal environmental law (enacted 1970)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The law was enacted on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Percy Schmeiser</span> Canadian farmer, businessman, and politician (1931–2020)

Percy Schmeiser was a Canadian businessman, farmer, and politician. In 1954, he took over the operations of the family owned farm, gas station, and farm equipment dealership. He renamed the farm equipment dealership Schmeiser's Garage and added a second farm equipment dealership in Humboldt, Saskatchewan in 1986 and oversaw their operations until their sale in 2003.

<i>Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser</i> Supreme Court of Canada decision

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did. The Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto their technology use fee, damages or costs, as Schmeiser did not receive any benefit from the technology. The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However, by the time the case went to trial, all claims of accidental contamination had been dropped; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted. Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.

Southern Exposure Seed Exchange (SESE) is a cooperatively-owned seed company. SESE is a source for heirloom seeds and other open-pollinated (non-hybrid) seeds with an emphasis on vegetables, flowers, and herbs that grow well in the Mid-Atlantic region. SESE also supports seed saving and traditional seed breeding through their product line, through lectures and workshops, and by working with over 50 small seed-growing farmers in the Mid-Atlantic and other parts of the United States. SESE publishes an intermittent email newsletter and blog for gardeners, as well as the Southern Exposure Seed Exchange Catalog and Garden Guide.

United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the members of SCRAP—five law students from the George Washington University Law School—had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). SCRAP was the first full-court consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court also reversed the lower court decision that an injunction should be issued at the suspension stage of the ICC rate proceeding. The standing decision has retained its place as the high mark in the Court's standing jurisprudence.

Roundup Ready is the Monsanto trademark for its patented line of genetically modified crop seeds that are resistant to its glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gregory G. Garre</span> American lawyer

Gregory G. Garre is an American lawyer who served as the 44th United States Solicitor General from June 19, 2008, to January 16, 2009. He is currently a partner at Latham & Watkins, a private law firm.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jeffrey White</span> American judge (born 1945)

Jeffrey Steven White is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The United States is the largest grower of commercial crops that have been genetically engineered in the world, but not without domestic and international opposition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plant Protection Act</span> United States legislation (2000)

The Plant Protection Act (PPA) is a US statute relating to plant pests and noxious weeds introduced in 2000. It is currently codified at 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. It consolidates related responsibilities that were previously spread over various legislative statutes, including the Plant Quarantine Act, the Federal Plant Pest Act and the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974.

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) is a 501c3, U.S. non-profit advocacy organization, based in Washington, D.C. It maintains an office in San Francisco, California. The executive director is Andrew Kimbrell, an attorney. Its stated mission is to protect human health and the environment, focusing on food production technologies such as genetically modified plants and organisms (GMOs). It was founded in 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mendocino County GMO Ban</span>

Mendocino County, California, was the first jurisdiction in the United States to ban the cultivation, production or distribution of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The ordinance, entitled Measure H, was passed by referendum on March 2, 2004. Initiated by the group "GMO Free Mendocino", the campaign was a highly publicized grassroots effort by local farmers and environmental groups who contend that the potential risks of GMOs to human health and the ecosystem have not yet been fully understood. The measure was met with opposition by several interest groups representing the biotechnology industry, The California Plant Health Association and CropLife America, a Washington-based consortium whose clients represent some of the largest food distributors in the nation, including Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical. Since the enactment of the ordinance, Mendocino County has been added to an international list of "GMO free zones." Pre-emptive statutes banning local municipalities from such ordinances have now become widespread with adoption in sixteen states.

The Farmer Assurance Provision refers to Section 735 of US H.R. 933, a bill that was passed by the Senate on March 20, 2013, and then signed into law as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 by President Barack Obama on March 26, 2013. The provisions of this law remained in effect for six months, until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013. The Farmer Assurance Provision was discontinued in Sec. 101 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. The bill is commonly referred to as the "Monsanto Protection Act" by its critics.

Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved, patented seeds without the patent owner's permission. The case arose after Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer, bought transgenic soybean crop seeds from a local grain elevator for his second crop of the season. Monsanto originally sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting. The farmers sold their soybean crops to the local grain elevator, from which Bowman then bought them. After Bowman replanted the crop seeds for his second harvest, Monsanto filed a lawsuit claiming that he infringed on their patents by replanting soybeans without a license. In response, Bowman argued that Monsanto's claims were barred under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, because all future generations of soybeans were embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.

Monsanto was involved in several high-profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It had been defendant in a number of lawsuits over health and environmental issues related to its products. Monsanto also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of agricultural biotechnology. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, and the company has since paid over $10 billion to settle lawsuits involving ex-Monsanto products Roundup, PCBs and Dicamba.

J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding for the first time that utility patents may be issued for crops and other flowering plants under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the exclusive ways to protect these plants are under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), 7 U.S.C. § 2321, and the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA), 35 U.S.C. §§ 161-164.

A genetically modified sugar beet is a sugar beet that has been genetically engineered by the direct modification of its genome using biotechnology. Commercialized GM sugar beets make use of a glyphosate-resistance modification developed by Monsanto and KWS Saat. These glyphosate-resistant beets, also called 'Roundup Ready' sugar beets, were developed by 2000, but not commercialized until 2007. For international trade, sugar beets have a Maximum Residue Limit of glyphosate of 15 mg/Kg at harvest. As of 2016, GMO sugar beets are grown in the United States and Canada. In the United States, they play an important role in domestic sugar production. Studies have concluded the sugar from glyphosate-resistant sugar beets is molecularly identical to and so has the same nutritional value as sugar from conventional (non-GMO) sugar beets.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010).
  2. 1 2 Koons, Jennifer (21 June 2010) Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Planting GM Alfalfa New York Times, Energy & Environment, Retrieved 28 August 2012
  3. ↑ Monsanto Co. and Forage Genetics International; Availability Determination of Nonregulated Status for Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate Federal Register, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 27 June 2005, Retrieved 28 August 2012
  4. ↑ USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, October 2004, Retrieved 28 August 2012
  5. 1 2 3 The Oyez Project, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. "Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms". The Oyez Project. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
  6. ↑ 0503.pdf Memorandum and Order Re: Permanent Injunction United States District Court for Northern California, Case No C 06-01075 CR, 3 May 2007, Retrieved 28 August 2012
  7. ↑ McEowan, Roger (15 January 2010)Roundup-Ready Alfalfa Injunction Upheld Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation, Retrieved 28 August 2012
  8. ↑ Fox, J. L. (2010). "GM alfalfa—who wins?". Nature Biotechnology. 28 (8): 770. doi: 10.1038/nbt0810-770a . S2CID   26514027.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 "FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT" (PDF).
  10. ↑ "Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services" . Retrieved April 20, 2011.
  11. ↑ N/A, N/A. "09-475 MONSANTO CO. V. GEERTSON SEED FARMS" (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved April 27, 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.