22 Cal.App.5th 534
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Monsanto (and agricultural industry intervenors) challenged OEHHA’s decision to list glyphosate under Proposition 65 after IARC classified it Group 2A (probably carcinogenic) in a 2015 Monograph.
- IARC is an international WHO-affiliated agency funded by multiple governments; its Monographs classify hazards (not risk levels) based on published studies reviewed by working groups.
- Prior to IARC’s 2015 finding, several national/regulatory bodies (including OEHHA’s own earlier assessments) had concluded glyphosate was unlikely to pose a cancer hazard.
- OEHHA issued a ministerial Notice of Intent to List glyphosate under the Labor Code listing mechanism incorporated into Proposition 65, which treats certain IARC listings as triggering state listing.
- Monsanto sued seeking writ/declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of California Constitution article II, §12; unconstitutional delegation; procedural due process; and the federal Guarantee Clause. Trial court sustained demurrer and granted judgment on the pleadings; Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article II, §12 (prohibition on initiative naming private corporations) | IARC is a private corporation not accountable to Californians, so Proposition 65 improperly delegates to/identifies a private corporation. | IARC is an intergovernmental/public entity (created/controlled by states and WHO) and not a private corporation under the clause. | Dismissed: IARC is not a “private corporation” for art. II, §12 purposes; claim fails. |
| Unconstitutional delegation of authority | The Labor Code listing mechanism and OEHHA’s ministerial reliance on IARC unlawfully delegate quasi‑legislative power to a foreign/independent body without standards or safeguards. | Proposition 65/Health & Safety Code resolved fundamental policy; listing is a factual/quasi‑legislative determination; statute provides adequate directions and safeguards (exemptions, no‑significant‑risk standard, implementing regs). | Dismissed: as‑applied challenge fails — delegation lawful given legislative policy resolution, adequate standards, and safeguards. |
| Procedural due process | Listing glyphosate by reference to IARC deprived plaintiffs of process because IARC process and working group selection were allegedly flawed. | Listing is quasi‑legislative; quasi‑legislative acts are not subject to procedural due process protections. | Dismissed: quasi‑legislative listing is not subject to procedural due process. |
| Guarantee Clause (U.S. Const.) | Delegation to a foreign agency undermines republican government guarantee and is judicially reviewable. | Guarantee Clause claims are political/nonjusticiable; no individual right to invoke it against state lawmaking. | Dismissed: claim nonjusticiable / inadequately pled; court declines to reach a justiciability exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian, 48 Cal.3d 805 (Cal. 1989) (interpretation of article II, §12 and when an initiative-created organization is a private corporation)
- Brown v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 196 Cal.App.4th 233 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (Proposition 65 listing mechanisms and incorporation of Labor Code references)
- Kugler v. Yocum, 69 Cal.2d 371 (Cal. 1968) (delegation doctrine: legislature may delegate fact‑finding if channeled by sufficient standards)
- Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. ALRB, 3 Cal.5th 1118 (Cal. 2017) (delegation analysis: fundamental policy must be resolved and adequate safeguards provided)
- International Assn. of Plumbing & Mech. Officials v. California Building Standards Commission, 55 Cal.App.4th 245 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (cases on adoption of external model codes and delegation limits)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1992) (political question and nonjusticiability of certain Guarantee Clause challenges)
- Keller v. State Bar, 47 Cal.3d 1152 (Cal. 1989) (public vs. private corporation analysis in regulatory context)