Hawai'i Papaya Industry Assn. v. County of Hawaii
666 F. App'x 631
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hawaii County enacted Ordinance 13-121 banning open-air testing, cultivation, propagation, or development of genetically engineered (GE) plants to prevent cross-pollination and protect the island ecosystem and indigenous agricultural practices.
- Plaintiffs (the GE Parties) challenged the Ordinance in district court, which granted summary judgment for the GE Parties.
- The GE Parties argued the Ordinance is (1) expressly preempted by the Plant Protection Act (PPA) as applied to plants APHIS regulates as plant pests, and (2) impliedly preempted under Hawaii law as to commercially deregulated GE plants.
- The County appealed; the Ninth Circuit consolidated reasoning with related opinions (Atay; Syngenta Seeds) addressing similar ordinances.
- The Ninth Circuit held the Ordinance is expressly preempted by the PPA to the extent it forbids GE plants APHIS treats as plant pests, and is impliedly preempted under Hawaii law as to federally deregulated, commercialized GE plants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ordinance is expressly preempted by the PPA when applied to GE plants APHIS regulates as plant pests | The PPA bars state/local regulation that controls or prevents dissemination of plant pests in interstate commerce; APHIS regulates GE crops under its plant-pest rules, so the Ordinance is preempted | County contends the Ordinance regulates local cultivation, not "movement in interstate commerce," and advances local conservation interests | Held: Expressly preempted as to GE plants APHIS regulates as plant pests (PPA §7756(b)) because the Ordinance regulates dissemination implicating interstate commerce and seeks to control spread of plant pests that APHIS regulates |
| Whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal implied preemption | GE Parties also asserted federal implied preemption (alternative) | County opposed implied-preemption theory | Not reached on appeal (GE Parties waived federal implied-preemption on appeal) |
| Whether Hawaii state law impliedly (field) preempts the Ordinance as to federally deregulated, commercial GE plants | State law establishes a comprehensive, uniform scheme delegating plant regulation to Hawaii Department of Agriculture (DOA); counties cannot intrude into that field, so the Ordinance is preempted | County argued local conservation authority under the Hawaii Constitution supports the Ordinance and counties retain power to protect environment | Held: Impliedly preempted under Hawaii law (HRS §46-1.5(13)) as to commercialized, federally deregulated GE plants because the state’s statutory scheme indicates exclusivity and uniformity |
| Whether state-law issues should be certified to Hawaii Supreme Court | GE Parties argued Hawaii law is settled and controls; certification unnecessary | County asked for certification on state preemption questions | Court declined certification; state law on implied preemption is adequately defined |
Key Cases Cited
- Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1992) (framework for statutory express preemption analysis)
- United States v. Dreyer, 804 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2015) (waiver of appellate arguments)
- Richardson v. City & County of Honolulu, 868 P.2d 1193 (Haw. 1994) ("comprehensive statutory scheme" test for field preemption under Hawaii law)
- Pac. Int’l Servs. Corp. v. Hurip, 873 P.2d 88 (Haw. 1994) (legislative intent to occupy a regulatory field is the critical determination)
- Haw. Gov’t Employees’ Ass’n v. Maui, 576 P.2d 1029 (Haw. 1978) (counties lack inherent constitutional authority; must have state delegation)
- In re Application of Anamizu, 481 P.2d 116 (Haw. 1971) (same point on county authority)