Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶145

The problem with this argument is that it is irrelevant to our actual holding in Bates. Our decision did not rely on the fact that the EPA had waived review of the pesticide’s efficacy in its registration determination. Indeed, outside of our discussion of the case’s factual background, we mentioned the agency’s decision to waive efficacy review only once: when explaining why it was particularly important to allow tort litigation in those circumstances. 544 U. S., at 450. But this was in the context of discussing an alternative ground for our holding, namely, applying a presumption against preemption. Id., at 449–450. It was not support for our primary holding, grounded in the text of the statute, that FIFRA does not preempt state tort claims that parallel its requirements.

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