Apr 28, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC – Arguments were held April 27 in the U.S. Supreme Court on an appeal of a Ninth Circuit Court ruling that would have lowered the threshold for obtaining injunctive relief, absent a finding of irreparable harm. Petitioners, including CropLife America (CLA) member company Monsanto, argue that the lower court did not conduct a full evidentiary hearing or resolve disputed issues of fact regarding any actual risk of harm before issuing an injunction against the planting of glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa. CLA, along with several other parties, filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners, urging the Court to reaffirm that likely irreparable harm is a prerequisite to injunctive relief, and that the injunction standard adopted by the Ninth Circuit does not adequately defer to the expert agency.
Plaintiffs argued in the Ninth Circuit that an alleged National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violation necessitated a nationwide ban on the product at-issue. CLA members and allies appealed the scope of injunctive relief to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the trial court erred by presuming broad harm based on the existence of an alleged NEPA violation rather than conducting a hearing to determine the actual risk of harm and tailoring any possible relief accordingly. Following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and denial of a motion to rehear, intervenors filed a cert petition and were granted a U.S. Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
CLA’s amicus brief, filed along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce among others, stated that “the decisions below make injunctive relief a foregone conclusion.” According to Jay Vroom, president and CEO of CropLife America, “our hope is that the Supreme Court will allow for continued scientific assessment and subsequent regulation of innovative technologies that are essential for the ability of Modern Agriculture to meet the food and environmental science needs of people everywhere.”
CLA’s General Counsel Doug Nelson reported that during oral argument the Supreme Court justices intensively questioned both petitioners and respondents, and focused on the underlying legal issues involving the threshold for issuing injunctive relief, not whether the product at issue had any effect on the environment.
CLA will provide further analysis of the Court’s eventual decision.
