In the 1984 case Thomas, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving data compensation provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The act required pesticide manufacturers to submit safety data to obtain product registration from EPA; if later applicants wished to register similar products using that same data within a certain time period, they had to offer compensation for its use. Union Carbide and other companies argued this violated their rights under the Takings Clause of Fifth Amendment as it forced them into an arbitration process without judicial review. However, in a unanimous decision led by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the court held that these provisions did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation because no property was taken for public use - instead private parties were resolving disputes over monetary obligations between themselves with oversight from EPA acting as arbiter rather than appropriator.

In the dissenting opinion for Thomas, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Justice White argued that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not authorize arbitration to resolve disputes over compensation between data submitters and follow-on registrants. He believed that Congress intended for courts to decide these issues rather than arbitrators who are not accountable in the same way as judges. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential bias among arbitrators due to their professional backgrounds or affiliations with industry groups. Justice White also criticized the majority's interpretation of FIFRA as overly broad and inconsistent with its legislative history.