111 F. Supp. 3d 1088
D. Haw.2015Background
- Maui County voters passed an initiative (the "Ordinance") banning propagation, cultivation, raising, growing, or testing of genetically engineered organisms (GE/GMOs) in the County, with limited exceptions and escalating civil and criminal penalties.
- Seed companies and other opponents (the "Seed Parties") sued in federal court seeking declaratory relief that the Ordinance is preempted by federal and state law; SHAKA (initiative supporters) intervened and filed parallel state-court proceedings that were removed/related.
- The Ordinance’s stated purposes include preventing "transgenic contamination," protecting organic markets, public health, environment, and cultural resources; it conditions any repeal/exception on costly, time-consuming studies and supermajority County Council approval.
- The federal Plant Protection Act (PPA) and its implementing APHIS regulations (7 C.F.R. pt. 340) regulate introduction and movement of genetically engineered organisms that are or are reasonably believed to be plant pests or noxious weeds; PPA contains express preemption language limiting state/local regulation of movement in interstate commerce.
- The State of Hawai‘i has a comprehensive statutory/regulatory scheme vesting the Dept. of Agriculture and Board of Agriculture with authority over introduction, quarantine, designation and control of restricted plants, noxious weeds, and related agricultural matters.
- County charter limits on penalties cap criminal fines at $1,000; the Ordinance prescribes much larger civil fines and criminal fines up to $2,000 and daily penalties, raising a separate charter-authority issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Federal preemption — whether the Ordinance is preempted by the Plant Protection Act and APHIS regs | Seed Parties: Ordinance bans GE organisms that federal law/regulations allow; PPA §7756(b) expressly preempts local regulation of movement of plant pests/noxious weeds when USDA has regulated the area | SHAKA: Ordinance pursues local health/environmental purposes and does not regulate interstate commerce or conflict with federal scheme | Held: Expressly preempted under PPA and 7 C.F.R. §340.0; Ordinance conflicts with federal regulation of regulated GE organisms and cannot stand. |
| 2) Federal implied (conflict) preemption — whether Ordinance obstructs federal objectives or experimental permit regimes | Seed Parties: Even absent express text, Ordinance frustrates PPA’s national, science-based movement/control regime and may conflict with EPA/USDA experimental field authorizations | SHAKA: Local public-health and land-use concerns are non-preempted; lack of factual record about federal authorizations limits finding of conflict | Held: Court notes implied conflict would also preempt Ordinance but resolves case on express preemption; did not need to decide EPA experimental-use conflicts. |
| 3) State-law preemption — whether Hawai‘i statutes/regulations occupy same field or conflict | Seed Parties: State statutes/regulations create comprehensive, uniform statewide agricultural and plant-introduction scheme (Dept. of Agriculture, Board, noxious weed/restricted-plant rules), displacing local bans | SHAKA: Ordinance addresses local health/safety and unique county concerns not covered by state law | Held: Ordinance covers same subject matter as comprehensive state scheme and is preempted under Hawai‘i law (Richardson test). |
| 4) County authority under Maui Charter — whether penalty provisions exceed county power | Seed Parties: Ordinance’s civil fines and criminal penalties exceed charter-authorized limits and exceed county authority | County/Supporters: Initiative process authorized ordinance; penalties are part of voter enactment | Held: Civil fines and criminal fines above $1,000 exceed County Charter/state limits; civil fine scheme unenforceable and cannot be judicially rewritten. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (Sup. Ct.) (Supremacy Clause analysis for local ordinances parallels state-law preemption analysis)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (Sup. Ct.) (presumption against preemption of traditional state police powers and guidance on discerning congressional intent)
- Dan’s City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 133 S. Ct. 1769 (Sup. Ct.) (identify domain expressly preempted where Congress defines preemption scope)
- Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (Sup. Ct.) (ask whether state/local law conflicts with or frustrates federal objectives)
- Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190 (Sup. Ct.) (analysis of federal preemption where federal statute preserves certain state powers)
- Richardson v. City & County of Honolulu, 868 P.2d 1193 (Haw. 1994) (establishes Hawaii test for municipal preemption by state law)