Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶138

Perhaps recognizing all this, Monsanto embraces a more extreme position: that a registered pesticide can never be misbranded. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10–11. That argument is easily disposed of because it cannot be squared with our decision in Bates, 544 U. S. 431, which recognized that a pesticide can be “registered but nevertheless misbranded,” id., at 438. Indeed, Bates—the only prior case in which we interpreted FIFRA’s preemption provision—not only requires flat rejection of this view; it also confirms that the majority’s interpretation of §136v(b) is wrong.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.