The case of Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Robert Babb, Edee Templet, and Kenneth A. Devun v. Hurley Henson in 2002 revolved around a dispute over the use of pesticides on crops. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had violated federal law by using an unregistered pesticide on their crops which resulted in damage to neighboring properties due to drift or runoff from rainfall. They sought damages for loss of property value as well as punitive damages for reckless conduct. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendants stating that there was no violation since they were not aware that their actions would cause harm and thus could not be held liable under strict liability principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow removal of a case from state court to federal court under certain circumstances undermined principles of federalism and comity between state and federal courts. The dissenting justices believed that the majority's interpretation of the "federal officer" removal statute was too broad and could potentially lead to an influx of cases being removed from state courts unnecessarily. They also expressed concern about potential abuse by corporations seeking more favorable rulings in federal courts rather than facing trial in local or state jurisdictions where they might be held accountable for their actions more rigorously.