Term: 2009
Docket: 09-475
Monsanto Company, Et Al. v. Geertson Seed Farms Et Al.
- Pro
09-475 MONSANTO CO. V. GEERTSON SEED FARMS DECISION BELOW:570 F.3d 1130 EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. JUSTICE BREYER TOOK NO PART. CERT. GRANTED 1/15/2010 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: In this case, after finding a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the district court imposed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, a permanent nationwide injunction against any further planting of a valuable genetically- engineered crop, despite overwhelming evidence that less restrictive measures proposed by an expert federal agency would eliminate any non¬trivial risk of harm. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that NEPA plaintiffs are specially exempt from the requirement of showing a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain an injunction. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that a district court may enter an injunction sought to remedy a NEPA violation without conducting an evidentiary hearing sought by a party to resolve genuinely disputed facts directly relevant to the appropriate scope of the requested injunction. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it affirmed a nationwide injunction entered prior to this Court's decision in Winter v. NRDC, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008), which sought to remedy a NEPA violation based on only a remote possibility of reparable harm. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-16458, 07-16492, 07-16725
The U.S. Supreme Court case Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms (2009) centered around the issue of genetically modified alfalfa. The dispute began when Monsanto developed a strain of Roundup Ready Alfalfa that was resistant to its own herbicide, glyphosate. However, Geertson Seed Farms and other parties sued the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), arguing that they had not adequately assessed environmental impacts before deregulating this new crop as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A lower court agreed with Geertson, banning planting of the genetically modified alfalfa until APHIS completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On appeal to the Supreme Court, however, it was ruled in favor of Monsanto on grounds that NEPA does not require such an EIS for deregulation decisions if there is no significant environmental impact or harm caused by them.
In the dissenting opinion of the Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms case, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have granted certiorari because there was no significant disagreement among lower courts on how to apply NEPA's procedural requirements in cases like this one. The dissent also contended that even if a "likely" risk of environmental harm could trigger an injunction under NEPA, such a finding wasn't made by District Court and thus couldn't justify its injunction here. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s view about mootness issue stating that respondents still had live claims for injunctive relief which were not addressed by APHIS's decision to deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa completely. They believed these remaining claims provided an ongoing basis for jurisdiction over appeal from denial of motion to amend judgment and hence court shouldn’t dismiss them as moot.
