Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. County of Kauai
842 F.3d 669
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kauai County enacted Ordinance 960 (2013) to regulate pesticides and GE crops; it imposed pre- and post-application notifications for restricted-use pesticides (RUPs), public weekly disclosure reports, and buffer zones limiting where pesticides may be applied.
- Ordinance applies to commercial agricultural entities (CAEs) exceeding threshold RUP use; violations carried civil fines and misdemeanor penalties.
- Plaintiffs (seed companies growing GE crops on Kauai) sued, alleging Ordinance 960’s pesticide provisions are impliedly preempted by Hawaii law; the district court agreed and enjoined enforcement of those provisions.
- The statutory scheme at issue is the Hawaii Pesticides Law (HRS ch. 149A) and implementing Department of Agriculture (DOA) rules, which regulate sale, use, labeling, licensing, recordkeeping, reporting, permits, and locations of pesticide application.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether Hawaii law’s comprehensive statutory scheme preempts the County ordinance and whether certification to the Hawaii Supreme Court was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ordinance 960’s pesticide provisions are impliedly preempted by Hawaii law under HRS § 46-1.5(13) | Ordinance addresses local health/environment concerns and fits within county police power; no clear state intent to occupy field | State law is comprehensive and expresses intent to be uniform/exclusive; county lacks authority to supplement | Held: Preempted — Hawaii Pesticides Law comprehensively occupies the field and manifests intent to be uniform/exclusive |
| Whether state law and the Ordinance address the same subject matter | Ordinance’s notifications and buffer zones are different in scope and aim than state rules | State law regulates notifications, recordkeeping, permissible locations, labeling, and use — same subject matter | Held: Same subject matter — both regulate pesticide use, notifications, and locations |
| Whether Hawaii’s statutory scheme is comprehensive enough to preempt local regulation | Ordinance is substantive/prophylactic where state rules are merely procedural/remedial; field not fully occupied | State law regulates the full life cycle of pesticides (research, sale, use, disposal) and imposes substantive limits and permits | Held: Comprehensive — state scheme covers pesticide lifecycle, substantive limits, permits, and enforcement |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to certify the state-law preemption question to the Hawaii Supreme Court | Certification necessary because Hawaii courts have not applied the test to these specific statutes | Hawaii preemption test and authorities are sufficiently developed for federal court decision | Held: No abuse — certification not required; federal court could apply Hawaii’s comprehensive-scheme test |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 868 P.2d 1193 (Haw. 1994) (sets out Hawaii’s comprehensive statutory scheme test for field preemption)
- Pacific Int’l Servs. Corp. v. Hurip, 873 P.2d 88 (Haw. 1994) (applies comprehensive-scheme test and focuses on legislative intent to be exclusive)
- In re Application of Anamizu, 481 P.2d 116 (Haw. 1971) (legislative pervasiveness can show intent to preempt local licensing/regulation)
- Haw. Gov’t Employees’ Ass’n v. Maui, 576 P.2d 1029 (Haw. 1978) (county police power persists absent clear legislative preemption)
- Citizens Utils. Co. v. Cty. of Kauai, 814 P.2d 398 (Haw. 1991) (addresses conflict between state statutes and county ordinances)
- Stallard v. Consolidated Maui, Inc., 83 P.3d 731 (Haw. 2004) (discusses overlapping elements of comprehensive-scheme preemption test)
- Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 (1991) (federal context: FIFRA leaves room for local regulation; contrasted with Hawaii’s more comprehensive statute)