In the case of Dennis Bates, et al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC in 2004, a group of Texas peanut farmers sued Dow AgroSciences alleging that Strongarm, a herbicide produced by the company, had stunted their crops and caused significant economic loss. The plaintiffs argued that under state law they were entitled to compensation for these losses as well as punitive damages due to alleged fraudulent misrepresentation on behalf of Dow regarding the safety and effectiveness of Strongarm. However, this was countered by Dow who claimed federal pesticide law preempted such claims at state level. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dow AgroSciences stating that federal insecticide laws did not preclude individual states from providing additional remedies for damages resulting from pesticides approved by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Yet it also clarified that while EPA approval does not shield manufacturers from liability or litigation under state laws; those laws must be consistent with federal statutes.

In the dissenting opinion for Dennis Bates, et al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, Justice Stevens argued that federal law should not pre-empt state laws regarding product liability and consumer protection unless Congress explicitly states so. He contended that the majority's interpretation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was overly broad and undermined traditional state powers to regulate health and safety matters. Furthermore, he believed this decision could potentially shield manufacturers from being held accountable for harm caused by their products if they complied with federal regulations - a situation which he felt contradicted both common sense and principles of justice. The dissent also criticized the majority's reliance on an earlier case (Cipollone v Liggett Group Inc.) as precedent because it involved different legislation with distinct legislative history.