Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶143

The majority tries unsuccessfully to rewrite Bates to support its view. It focuses principally on an example Bates gave of the type of EPA regulation that could preempt a failure-to-warn claim: the precautionary-statements regulations that require a “CAUTION” designation or a “DANGER” designation depending on the pesticide's toxicity. Ante, at 385 (citing Bates, 544 U. S., at 453). The EPA's registration determination, the majority says, is “just like” those EPA regulations. Ante, at 385–386.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.