MONSANTO CO. ET AL. v. GEERTSON SEED FARMS ET AL.
No. 09-475
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Argued April 27, 2010—Decided June 21, 2010
561 U.S. 139
Deputy Solicitor General Stewart argued the cause for the federal respondents in support of petitioners. On the briefs were Solicitor General Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Moreno, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Sarah E. Harrington, Andrew C. Mergen, Ellen J. Durkee, and Anna T. Katselas.
Lawrence S. Robbins argued the cause for respondents Geertson Seed Farms et al. With him on the brief were Donald J. Russell, Alan E. Untereiner, Eva A. Temkin, George A. Kimbrell, Kevin S. Golden, and Richard J. Lazarus.*
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Farm Bureau Federation et al. by Dan Himmelfarb and Jay C. Johnson; for the American Sugarbeet Growers Association et al. by Jerrold J. Ganzfried, John F. Bruce, Gilbert S. Keteltas, Christopher H. Marraro, and John F. Stanton; for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. by F. William Brownell, Ryan A. Shores, Robin S. Conrad, Amar D. Sarwal, Harry M. Ng, Stacy R. Linden, Thomas Ward, and Douglas Nelson; for the Pacific Legal Foundation by M. Reed Hopper and Damien M. Schiff; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by Daniel J. Popeo, Cory L. Andrews, and Kevin T. Haroff.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Arkansas Rice Growers Association et al. by Richard Drury; for CROPP Cooperative et al. by Stephanie Tai and Dennis M. Grzezinski; for the Union of Concerned Scientists et al. by Deborah A. Sivas; and for Dinah Bear et al. by Hope M. Babcock.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the State of California ex rel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al. by Mr. Brown, Attorney General, pro se, Matt Rodriquez, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gordon Burns, Deputy State Solicitor General, Ken Alex, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Sally Magnani, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Susan S. Fiering, Deputy Attorney General, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Martha Coakley, Attorney General, and Seth Schofield, Assistant Attorney General, and for the State of Oregon by John R. Kroger, Attorney General; for the Defenders of Wildlife et al. by Eric R. Glitzenstein and Howard M. Crystal; and for the Natural Resources Defense Council et al. by Allison M. LaPlante and Nathaniel S. W. Lawrence.
This case arises out of a decision by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to deregulate a variety of genetically engineered alfalfa. The District Court held that APHIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
I
A
The Plant Protection Act (PPA),
In deciding whether to grant nonregulated status to a genetically engineered plant variety, APHIS must comply with NEPA, which requires federal agencies “to the fullest extent possible” to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for “every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actio[n] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
An agency need not complete an EIS for a particular proposal if it finds, on the basis of a shorter “environmental assessment” (EA), that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment.
This case involves Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA), a kind of alfalfa crop that has been genetically engineered to be tolerant of glyphosate, the active ingredient of the herbicide Roundup. Petitioner Monsanto Company (Monsanto) owns the intellectual property rights to RRA. Monsanto licenses those rights to co-petitioner Forage Genetics International (FGI), which is the exclusive developer of RRA seed.
APHIS initially classified RRA as a regulated article, but in 2004 petitioners sought nonregulated status for two strains of RRA. In response, APHIS prepared a draft EA assessing the likely environmental impact of the requested deregulation. It then published a notice in the Federal Register advising the public of the deregulation petition and soliciting public comments on its draft EA. After considering the hundreds of public comments that it received, APHIS issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” and decided to deregulate RRA unconditionally and without preparing an EIS. Prior to this decision, APHIS had authorized almost 300 field trials of RRA conducted over a period of eight years. App. 348.
Approximately eight months after APHIS granted RRA nonregulated status, respondents (two conventional alfalfa seed farms and environmental groups concerned with food safety) filed this action against the Secretary of Agriculture and certain other officials in Federal District Court, challenging APHIS‘s decision to completely deregulate RRA. Their complaint alleged violations of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),
After these rulings, the District Court granted petitioners permission to intervene in the remedial phase of the lawsuit. The court then asked the parties to submit proposed judgments embodying their preferred means of remedying the NEPA violation. APHIS‘s proposed judgment would have ordered the agency to prepare an EIS, vacated the agency‘s deregulation decision, and replaced that decision with the terms of the judgment itself. Id., at 184a (proposed judgment providing that “[the federal] defendants’ [June 14,] 2005 Determination of Nonregulated Status for Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate is hereby vacated and replaced by the terms of this judgment” (emphasis added)). The terms of the proposed judgment, in turn, would have permitted the continued planting of RRA pending completion of the EIS, subject to six restrictions. Those restrictions included, among other things, mandatory isolation distances between RRA and non-genetically-engineered alfalfa fields in order to mitigate the risk of gene flow; mandatory harvesting conditions; a re-
The District Court rejected APHIS‘s proposed judgment. In its preliminary injunction, the District Court prohibited almost all future planting of RRA pending APHIS‘s completion of the required EIS. But in order to minimize the harm to farmers who had relied on APHIS‘s deregulation decision, the court expressly allowed those who had already purchased RRA to plant their seeds until March 30, 2007. Id., at 58a. In its subsequently entered permanent injunction and judgment, the court (1) vacated APHIS‘s deregulation decision; (2) ordered APHIS to prepare an EIS before it made any decision on Monsanto‘s deregulation petition; (3) enjoined the planting of any RRA in the United States after March 30, 2007, pending APHIS‘s completion of the required EIS; and (4) imposed certain conditions (suggested by APHIS) on the handling and identification of already-planted RRA. Id., at 79a, 109a. The District Court denied petitioners’ request for an evidentiary hearing.
The Government, Monsanto, and FGI appealed, challenging the scope of the relief granted but not disputing the existence of a NEPA violation. See Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 570 F. 3d 1130, 1136 (2009). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Based on its review of the record, the panel first concluded that the District Court had “recognized that an injunction does not ‘automatically issue’ when a NEPA violation is found” and had instead based its issuance of injunctive relief on the four-factor test traditionally used for that purpose. Id., at 1137. The panel held that the District Court had not com-
The panel majority also rejected petitioners’ alternative argument that the District Court had erred in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing before entering its permanent injunction. Writing in dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith disagreed with that conclusion. In his view, the District Court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before issuing a permanent injunction unless the facts were undisputed or the adverse party expressly waived its right to such a hearing. Neither of those two exceptions, he found, applied here.
We granted certiorari. 558 U. S. 1142 (2010).
II
A
At the threshold, respondents contend that petitioners lack standing to seek our review of the lower court rulings at issue here. We disagree.
Standing under Article III of the Constitution requires that an injury be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling. Horne v. Flores, 557 U. S. 433, 445 (2009). Petitioners here satisfy all three criteria. Petitioners are injured by their inability to sell or license
Respondents do not dispute that petitioners would have standing to contest the District Court‘s permanent injunction order if they had pursued a different litigation strategy. Instead, respondents argue that the injury of which petitioners complain is independently caused by a part of the District Court‘s order that petitioners failed to challenge, namely, the vacatur of APHIS‘s deregulation decision. The practical consequence of the vacatur, respondents contend, was to restore RRA to the status of a regulated article; and, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, federal regulations ban the growth and sale of regulated articles. Because petitioners did not specifically challenge the District Court‘s vacatur, respondents reason, they lack standing to challenge a part of the District Court‘s order (i. e., the injunction) that does not cause petitioners any injury not also caused by the vacatur. See Brief for Respondents 19-20.
Respondents’ argument fails for two independent reasons. First, although petitioners did not challenge the vacatur directly, they adequately preserved their objection that the vacated deregulation decision should have been replaced by APHIS‘s proposed injunction. Throughout the remedial phase of this litigation, one of the main disputes between the parties has been whether the District Court was required to adopt APHIS‘s proposed judgment. See, e. g., Intervenor-Appellants’ Opening Brief in No. 07-16458 etc. (CA9), p. 59 (urging the Court of Appeals to “vacate the district court‘s judgment and remand this case to the district court with instructions to enter APHIS‘s proposed relief“); Opening Brief of Federal Defendants-Appellants in No. 07-16458 etc. (CA9), pp. 21, 46 (“The blanket injunction should be narrowed in accordance with APHIS‘s proposal“); see also Tr. of
Second, petitioners in any case have standing to challenge the part of the District Court‘s order enjoining partial deregulation. Respondents focus their standing argument on the part of the judgment enjoining the planting of RRA, but the judgment also states that “[b]efore granting Monsanto‘s deregulation petition, even in part, the federal defendants shall prepare an environmental impact statement.” Id., at 108a (emphasis added); see also id., at 79a (“The Court will enter a final judgment...ordering the government to prepare an EIS before it makes a decision on Monsanto‘s deregulation petition“). As respondents concede, that part of the judgment goes beyond the vacatur of APHIS‘s deregulation decision. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 37, 46.
At oral argument, respondents contended that the restriction on APHIS‘s ability to effect a partial deregulation of RRA does not cause petitioners “an actual or an imminent harm.” Id., at 39-40. In order for a partial deregulation to occur, respondents argued, the case would have to be remanded to the agency, and APHIS would have to prepare an
We reject this argument. If the injunction were lifted, we do not see why the District Court would have to remand the matter to the agency in order for APHIS to effect a partial deregulation. And even if a remand were required, we perceive no basis on which the District Court could decline to remand the matter to the agency so that it could determine whether to pursue a partial deregulation during the pendency of the EIS process.
Nor is any doubt as to whether APHIS would issue a new EA in favor of a partial deregulation sufficient to defeat petitioners’ standing. It is undisputed that petitioners have submitted a deregulation petition and that a partial deregulation of the kind embodied in the agency‘s proposed judgment would afford petitioners much of the relief that they seek; it is also undisputed that, absent the District Court‘s order, APHIS could attempt to effect such a partial deregulation pending its completion of the EIS. See id., at 7-8, 25-27, 38. For purposes of resolving the particular standing question before us, we need not decide whether or to what extent a party challenging an injunction that bars an agency from granting certain relief must show that the agency would be likely to afford such relief if it were free to do so. In this case, as is clear from APHIS‘s proposed judgment and from its briefing throughout the remedial phase of this litigation, the agency takes the view that a partial deregulation reflecting its proposed limitations is in the public interest. Thus, there is more than a strong likelihood that APHIS would partially deregulate RRA were it not for the District Court‘s injunction. The District Court‘s elimination of that likelihood is plainly sufficient to establish a con-
B
We next consider petitioners’ contention that respondents lack standing to seek injunctive relief. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 352 (2006) (“[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Petitioners argue that respondents have failed to show that any of the named respondents is likely to suffer a constitutionally cognizable injury absent injunctive relief. See Brief for Petitioners 40. We disagree.
Respondents include conventional alfalfa farmers. Emphasizing “the undisputed concentration of alfalfa seed farms,” the District Court found that those farmers had “established a ‘reasonable probability’ that their organic and conventional alfalfa crops will be infected with the engineered gene” if RRA is completely deregulated. App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a.3 A substantial risk of gene flow injures
Such harms, which respondents will suffer even if their crops are not actually infected with the Roundup Ready gene, are sufficiently concrete to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of the constitutional standing analysis. Those harms are readily attributable to APHIS‘s deregulation decision, which, as the District Court found, gives rise to a significant risk of gene flow to non-genetically-engineered varieties of alfalfa. Finally, a judicial order prohibiting the growth and sale of all or some genetically engineered alfalfa would remedy respondents’ injuries by eliminating or minimizing the risk of gene flow to conventional and organic alfalfa crops. We therefore conclude that respondents have constitutional standing to seek injunctive relief from the complete deregulation order at issue here.
Petitioners appear to suggest that respondents fail to satisfy the “zone of interests” test we have previously articulated as a prudential standing requirement in cases challenging agency compliance with particular statutes. See Reply Brief for Petitioners 12 (arguing that protection against the risk of commercial harm “is not an interest that NEPA was enacted to address“); Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 162–163 (1997). That argument is unpersuasive because, as the District Court found, respondents’ injury has an environmental as well as an economic component. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a. In its ruling on the merits of respondents’ NEΡΑ claim, the District Court held that the risk that the RRA gene conferring glyphosate resistance will infect conventional and organic alfalfa is a significant environmental effect within the meaning of NEPA. Petitioners did not appeal that part of the court‘s ruling, and we have no occasion to
In short, respondents have standing to seek injunctive relief, and petitioners have standing to seek this Court‘s review of the Ninth Circuit‘s judgment affirming the entry of such relief. We therefore proceed to the merits of the case.
III
A
The District Court sought to remedy APHIS‘S NEPA violation in three ways: First, it vacated the agency‘s decision completely deregulating RRA; second, it enjoined APHIS from deregulating RRA, in whole or in part, pending completion of the mandated EIS; and third, it entered a nationwide injunction prohibiting almost all future planting of RRA. Id., at 108a-110a. Because petitioners and the Government do not argue otherwise, we assume without deciding that the District Court acted lawfully in vacating the deregulation decision. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 7 (“[T]he district court could have vacated the order in its entirety and sent it back to the agency“); accord, id., at 15-16. We therefore address only the latter two aspects of the District Court‘s judgment. Before doing so, however, we provide a brief overview of the standard governing the entry of injunctive relief.
B
“[A] plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
Petitioners argue that the lower courts in this case proceeded on the erroneous assumption that an injunction is generally the appropriate remedy for a NEPA violation. In particular, petitioners note that the District Court cited pre-Winter Ninth Circuit precedent for the proposition that, in “‘the run of the mill NEPA case,‘” an injunction delaying the contemplated government project is proper “‘until the NEPA violation is cured.‘” App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a (quoting Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F. 3d 815, 833 (CA9 2002)); see also App. to Pet. for Cert. 55a (quoting same language in preliminary injunction order). In addition, petitioners observe, the District Court and the Court of Appeals in this case both stated that, “in unusual circumstances, an injunction may be withheld, or, more likely, limited in scope” in NEPA cases. Id., at 66a (quoting National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. Babbitt, 241 F. 3d 722, 737, n. 18 (CA9 2001); internal quotation marks omitted); 570 F. 3d, at 1137.
Insofar as the statements quoted above are intended to guide the determination whether to grant injunctive relief, they invert the proper mode of analysis. An injunction should issue only if the traditional four-factor test is satisfied. See Winter, supra, at 31-33. In contrast, the statements quoted above appear to presume that an injunction is the proper remedy for a NEPA violation except in unusual circumstances. No such thumb on the scales is warranted. Nor, contrary to the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, could any such error be cured by a court‘s perfunctory recognition
Notwithstanding the lower courts’ apparent reliance on the incorrect standard set out in the pre-Winter Circuit precedents quoted above, respondents argue that the lower courts in fact applied the traditional four-factor test. In their view, the statements that injunctive relief is proper in the “run-of-the-mill” NEPA case, and that such injunctions are granted except in “unusual circumstances,” are descriptive rather than prescriptive. See Brief for Respondents 28, n. 14. We need not decide whether respondents’ characterization of the lower court opinions in this case is sound. Even if it is, the injunctive relief granted here cannot stand.
C
We first consider whether the District Court erred in enjoining APHIS from partially deregulating RRA during the pendency of the EIS process.4
The relevant part of the District Court‘s judgment states that, “[b]efore granting Monsanto‘s deregulation petition, even in part, the federal defendants shall prepare an envi-
In our view, none of the traditional four factors governing the entry of permanent injunctive relief supports the District Court‘s injunction prohibiting partial deregulation. To see why that is so, it is helpful to understand how the injunction prohibiting a partial deregulation fits into the broader dispute between the parties.
Respondents in this case brought suit under the
In this case, APHIS apparently sought to “streamline” the proceedings by asking the District Court to craft a remedy that, in effect, would have partially deregulated RRA until such time as the agency had finalized the EIS needed for a complete deregulation. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 16, 23-24; App. to Pet. for Cert. 69a. To justify that disposition, APHIS and petitioners submitted voluminous documentary submissions in which they purported to show that the risk of gene flow would be insignificant if the District Court allowed limited planting and harvesting subject to APHIS‘s proposed conditions. Respondents, in turn, submitted considerable evidence of their own that seemed to cut the other way. This put the District Court in an unenviable position. “The parties’ experts disagreed over virtually every factual issue relating to possible environmental harm, including the likelihood of genetic contamination and why some contamination had already occurred.” 570 F. 3d, at 1135.
The District Court may well have acted within its discretion in refusing to craft a judicial remedy that would have authorized the continued planting and harvesting of RRA while the EIS is being prepared. It does not follow, however, that the District Court was within its rights in enjoining APHIS from allowing such planting and harvesting pursuant to the authority vested in the agency by law. When the District Court entered its permanent injunction, APHIS had not yet exercised its authority to partially deregulate RRA. Until APHIS actually seeks to effect a partial deregulation, any judicial review of such a decision is premature.5
Nor can the District Court‘s injunction be justified as a prophylactic measure needed to guard against the possibility that the agency would seek to effect on its own the particular partial deregulation scheme embodied in the terms of APHIS‘s proposed judgment. Even if the District Court was not required to adopt that judgment, there was no need to stop the agency from effecting a partial deregulation in accordance with the procedures established by law. Moreover, the terms of the District Court‘s injunction do not just enjoin the particular partial deregulation embodied in APHIS‘s proposed judgment. Instead, the District Court barred the agency from pursuing any deregulation—no matter how limited the geographic area in which planting of RRA would be allowed, how great the isolation distances mandated between RRA fields and fields for growing non-genetically-engineered alfalfa, how stringent the regulations governing harvesting and distribution, how robust the enforcement mechanisms available at the time of the decision, and—consequently—no matter how small the risk that the planting authorized under such conditions would adversely affect the environment in general and respondents in particular.
Based on the analysis set forth above, it is clear that the order enjoining any deregulation whatsoever does not satisfy the traditional four-factor test for granting permanent injunctive relief. Most importantly, respondents cannot show that they will suffer irreparable injury if APHIS is allowed to proceed with any partial deregulation, for at least two independent reasons.
First, if and when APHIS pursues a partial deregulation that arguably runs afoul of
Second, a partial deregulation need not cause respondents any injury at all, much less irreparable injury; if the scope
Of course, APHIS might ultimately choose not to partially deregulate RRA during the pendency of the EIS, or else to pursue the kind of partial deregulation embodied in its proposed judgment rather than the very limited deregulation envisioned in the above hypothetical. Until such time as the agency decides whether and how to exercise its regulatory authority, however, the courts have no cause to intervene. Indeed, the broad injunction entered here essentially preempts the very procedure by which the agency could determine, independently of the pending EIS process for assessing the effects of a complete deregulation, that a limited deregulation would not pose any appreciable risk of environmental harm. See
In sum, we do not know whether and to what extent APHIS would seek to effect a limited deregulation during the pendency of the EIS process if it were free to do so; we do know that the vacatur of APHIS‘s deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, and we also know that any party aggrieved by a hypothetical future deregulation decision will have ample opportunity to challenge it, and to seek appropriate preliminary relief, if and when such a decision is made. In light of these particular circumstances, we hold that the District Court did not properly exercise its discretion in enjoining a partial deregulation of any kind pending APHIS‘s preparation of an EIS. It follows that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming that aspect of the District Court‘s judgment.
We now turn to petitioners’ claim that the District Court erred in entering a nationwide injunction against planting RRA. Petitioners argue that the District Court did not apply the right test for determining whether to enter permanent injunctive relief; that, even if the District Court identified the operative legal standard, it erred as a matter of law in applying that standard to the facts of this case; and that the District Court was required to grant petitioners an evidentiary hearing to resolve contested issues of fact germane to the remedial dispute between the parties. We agree that the District Court‘s injunction against planting went too far, but we come to that conclusion for two independent reasons.
First, the impropriety of the District Court‘s broad injunction against planting flows from the impropriety of its injunction against partial deregulation. If APHIS may partially deregulate RRA before preparing a full-blown EIS—a question that we need not and do not decide here—farmers should be able to grow and sell RRA in accordance with that agency determination. Because it was inappropriate for the District Court to foreclose even the possibility of a partial and temporary deregulation, it necessarily follows that it was likewise inappropriate to enjoin any and all parties from acting in accordance with the terms of such a deregulation decision.
Second, respondents have represented to this Court that the District Court‘s injunction against planting does not have any meaningful practical effect independent of its vacatur. See Brief for Respondents 24; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 38 (“[T]he mistake that was made [by the District Court] was in not appreciating ... that the vacatur did have [the] effect” of independently prohibiting the growth and sale of almost all RRA). An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 311-312 (1982). If a less drastic remedy (such as partial or complete
E
In sum, the District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the possibility of planting in accordance with the terms of such a deregulation. Given those errors, this Court need not express any view on whether injunctive relief of some kind was available to respondents on the record before us. Nor does the Court address the question whether the District Court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before entering the relief at issue here. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.
The Court does not dispute the District Court‘s critical findings of fact: First, Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) can contaminate other plants. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a, 54a, 62a. Second, even planting in a controlled setting had led to contamination in some instances. See id., at 69a-70a. Third, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has limited ability to monitor or enforce limitations on planting. See id., at 70a. And fourth, genetic contamination from RRA could decimate farmers’ livelihoods and the American alfalfa market for years to come. See id., at 71a; see also id., at 29a-30a. Instead, the majority faults the District Court for “enjoining APHIS from partially deregulating RRA.” Ante, at 158.
I
To understand the District Court‘s judgment, it is necessary to understand the background of this litigation. Petitioner Monsanto Company (Monsanto) is a large corporation that has long produced a weedkiller called Roundup. After years of experimentation, Monsanto and copetitioner Forage Genetics International (FGI) genetically engineered a mutation in the alfalfa genome that makes the plant immune to Roundup. Monsanto and FGI‘s new product, RRA, is “the first crop that has been engineered to resist a[n] herbicide” and that can transmit the genetically engineered gene to other plants. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a.
In 2004, in the midst of a deregulatory trend in the agricultural sector, petitioners asked APHIS to deregulate RRA, thereby allowing it to be sold and planted nationwide. Id., at 101a. Rather than conducting a detailed analysis and preparing an “environmental impact statement” (EIS), as required by the
The District Court carefully reviewed a long record and found that “APHIS‘s reasons for concluding” that the risks of genetic contamination are low were “not ‘convincing.’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a. A review of APHIS‘s internal documents showed that individuals within the agency warned that contamination might occur. APHIS rested its decision to deregulate on its assertion that contamination risk is “not significant because it is the organic and conventional farmers’ responsibility” to protect themselves and the environment. Ibid. Yet the agency drew this conclusion without having investigated whether such farmers “can, in fact, protect their crops from contamination.” Ibid. The District Court likewise found that APHIS‘s reasons for disregarding the risk of pesticide-resistant weeds were speculative and “not convincing.” Id., at 46a. The agency had merely explained that if weeds acquire Roundup resistance, farmers can use “[a]lternative herbicides.” Ibid. In light of the “acknowledged” risk of RRA gene transmission and the potential “impact on the development of Roundup resistant weeds,” the court concluded that there was a significant possibility of serious environmental harm, and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. Id., at 54a; see also id., at 45a.
At this point, the question of remedy arose. The parties submitted proposed final judgments, and several corporations with an interest in RRA, including Monsanto, sought permission to intervene. The District Court granted their motion and agreed “to give them the opportunity to present
While the District Court considered the proposed judgments, it issued a preliminary injunction. Ordinarily, the court explained, the remedy for failure to conduct an EIS is to vacate the permit that was unlawfully given—the result of which, in this case, would be to prohibit any use of RRA. See id., at 55a; see also id., at 65a. But this case presented a special difficulty: Following APHIS‘s unlawful deregulation order, some farmers had begun planting genetically modified RRA. Id., at 55a. In its preliminary injunction, the District Court ordered that no new RRA could be planted until APHIS completed the EIS or the court determined that some other relief was appropriate. But, so as to protect these farmers, the court declined to prohibit them from “harvesting, using, or selling” any crops they had already planted. Id., at 56a. And “to minimize the harm to those growers who intend to imminently plant [RRA],” the court permitted “[t]hose growers who intend to plant [RRA] in the next three weeks and have already purchased the seed” to go ahead and plant. Id., at 58a (emphasis deleted). Essentially, the court grandfathered in those farmers who had relied, in good faith, on APHIS‘s actions.
Before determining the scope of its final judgment, the District Court invited the parties and intervenors to submit “whatever additional evidence” they “wish[ed] to provide,” and it scheduled additional oral argument. Id., at 58a-59a. The parties submitted “competing proposals for permanent injunctive relief.” Id., at 60a. The plaintiffs requested that no one—not even the grandfathered-in farmers—be allowed to plant, grow, or harvest RRA until the full EIS had been prepared. Id., at 64a. APHIS and the intervenors instead sought a remedy that would “facilitat[e] the continued and dramatic growth” of RRA: a “partial deregulation” order that would permit planting subject to certain conditions,
The court adopted a compromise. First, it declined to adopt the APHIS-Monsanto proposal. APHIS itself had acknowledged that “gene transmission could and had occurred,” and that RRA “could result in the development of Roundup-resistant weeds.” Id., at 61a-62a. In light of the substantial record evidence of these risks, the court would not agree to a nationwide planting scheme “without the benefit of the development of all the relevant data,” as well as public comment about whether contamination could be controlled. Id., at 68a. The “partial deregulation” proposed by petitioners, the court noted, was really “deregulation with certain conditions,” id., at 69a—which, for the same reasons given in the court‘s earlier order, requires an EIS, ibid. The court pointed out numerous problems with the APHIS-Monsanto proposal. Neither APHIS nor Monsanto had provided “evidence that suggests whether, and to what extent, the proposed interim conditions” would actually “be followed,” and comparable conditions had failed to prevent contamination in certain limited settings. Id., at 69a-70a. APHIS, moreover, conceded that “it does not have the resources to inspect” the RRA that had already been planted, and so could not possibly be expected “to adequately monitor the more than one million acres of [RRA] intervenors estimate [would] be planted” under their proposal. Id., at 70a. That was especially problematic because any plan to limit contamination depended on rules about harvesting, and farmers were unlikely to follow those rules. Id., at 71a. “APHIS ha[d] still not made any inquiry” into numerous factual concerns raised by the court in its summary judgment order issued several months earlier. Id., at 70a.
Next, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed remedy of “enjoin[ing] the harvesting and sale of already planted”
As to all other RRA, however, the court sided with the plaintiffs and enjoined planting during the pendency of the EIS. Balancing the equities, the court explained that the risk of harm was great. “[C]ontamination cannot be undone; it will destroy the crops of those farmers who do not sell genetically modified alfalfa.” Id., at 71a. And because those crops “cannot be replanted for two to four years,” that loss will be even greater. Ibid. On the other side of the balance, the court recognized that some farmers may wish to switch to genetically modified alfalfa immediately, and some companies like Monsanto want to start selling it to them just as fast. But, the court noted, RRA is a small percentage of those companies’ overall business; unsold seed can be stored; and the companies “have [no] cause to claim surprise” as to any loss of anticipated revenue, as they “were aware of plaintiffs’ lawsuit” and “nonetheless chose to market” RRA. Id., at 72a.
Thus, the District Court stated that it would “vacat[e] the June 2005 deregulation decision“; “enjoi[n] the planting of [RRA] in the United States after March 30, 2007,” the date of the decision, “pending the government‘s completion of the EIS and decision on the deregulation petition“; and impose “conditions on the handling and identification of already-planted [RRA].” Id., at 79a. On the same day, the court issued its judgment. In relevant part, the judgment states:
“The federal defendants’ June 14, 2005 Determination of Nonregulated Status for [RRA] is VACATED. Be-
fore granting Monsanto‘s deregulation petition, even in part, the federal defendants shall prepare an [EIS]. Until the federal defendants prepare the EIS and decide the deregulation petition, no [RRA] may be planted. ... “[RRA already] planted before March 30, 2007 may be grown, harvested and sold subject to the following conditions.” Id., at 108a-109a.
II
Before proceeding to address the Court‘s opinion on its own terms, it is important to note that I have reservations about the validity of those terms. The Court today rests not only the bulk of its analysis but also the primary basis for our jurisdiction on the premise that the District Court enjoined APHIS from partially deregulating RRA in any sense. See ante, at 152-153, 158-164.1 That is a permissible, but not necessarily correct, reading of the District Court‘s judgment.
So far as I can tell, until petitioners’ reply brief, neither petitioners nor the Government submitted to us that the District Court had exceeded its authority in this manner. And, indeed, the Government had not raised this issue in any court at all. Petitioners did not raise the issue in any of their three questions presented or in the body of their petition for a writ of certiorari. And they did not raise the issue in their opening briefs to this Court. Only after re-
Thus, notwithstanding that petitioners “adequately preserved their objection that the vacated deregulation decision should have been replaced by APHIS‘s proposed injunction,” ante, at 150 (emphasis added), the key legal premise on which the Court decides this case was never adequately presented. Of course, this is not standard—or sound—judicial practice. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U. S. 137, 159 (1999) (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Today‘s decision illustrates why, for it is quite unclear whether the Court‘s premise is correct, and the Court has put itself in the position of deciding legal issues without the aid of briefing.
In my view, the District Court‘s judgment can fairly be read to address only (1) total deregulation orders of the kind that spawned this lawsuit, and (2) the particular partial deregulation order proposed to the court by APHIS. This interpretation of the judgment is more consistent with the District Court‘s accompanying opinion, which concluded by stating that the court “will enter a final judgment” “ordering the government to prepare an EIS before [the court] makes a decision on Monsanto‘s deregulation petition.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 79a. The language of that opinion does not appear to “ba[r] the agency from pursuing any deregulation—no matter how limited,” ante, at 161 (emphasis deleted).
To be sure, the District Court‘s judgment is somewhat opaque. But it is troubling that we may be asserting jurisdiction and deciding a highly factbound case based on nothing more than a misunderstanding. It is also troubling that we may be making law without adequate briefing on the critical questions we are passing upon. I would not be surprised if on remand the District Court merely clarified its order.
III
Even assuming that the majority has correctly interpreted the District Court‘s judgment, I do not agree that we should reverse the District Court.
At the outset, it is important to observe that when a district court is faced with an unlawful agency action, a set of parties who have relied on that action, and a prayer for relief to avoid irreparable harm, the court is operating under its powers of equity. In such a case, a court‘s function is “to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case.” Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329 (1944). “Flexibility” and “practicality” are the touchstones of these remedial determinations, as “the public interest,” “private needs,” and “competing private claims” must all be weighed and reconciled against the background of the court‘s own limitations and its particular familiarity with the case. Id., at 329-330.2
When a district court takes on the equitable role of adjusting legal obligations, we review the remedy it crafts for abuse of discretion. “[D]eference,” we have explained, “is the hallmark of abuse-of-discretion review.” General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U. S. 136, 143 (1997). Although equitable remedies are “not left to a trial court‘s ‘inclination,’ ” they are left to the court‘s ” ‘judgment.’ ” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 416 (1975) (quoting United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C. J.)). The principles set forth in applicable federal statutes may inform that judgment. See United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 497 (2001) (“[A] court sitting in equity cannot ignore the judgment of Congress, deliberately expressed in legislation” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And historically, courts have had particularly broad equitable power—and thus particularly broad discretion—to remedy public nuisances and other “purprestures upon public rights and properties,” Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 672 (1887),3 which include environmental harms.4
In my view, the District Court did not “unreasonably exercis[e]” its discretion, Bennett v. Bennett, 208 U. S. 505, 512 (1908), even if it did categorically prohibit partial deregulation pending completion of the EIS. Rather, the District Court‘s judgment can be understood as either of two reasonable exercises of its equitable powers.
First, the District Court‘s decision can be understood as an equitable application of administrative law. Faced with two different deregulation proposals, the District Court appears to have vacated the deregulation that had already occurred, made clear that
Under
ante, at 161, requires an EIS under
Moreover, given that APHIS had already been ordered to conduct an EIS on deregulation of RRA, the court could have reasonably feared that partial deregulation would undermine the agency‘s eventual decision. Courts confronted with
Although the majority does not dispute that the District Court could have reasonably concluded that
Similarly, I do not agree that the District Court‘s ruling was “premature” because APHIS had not yet effected any partial deregulations, ante, at 160. Although it is “for the agency to decide whether and to what extent” it will pursue deregulation, ante, at 159, the court‘s application of
Injunctive Relief
Second, the District Court‘s judgment can be understood as a reasonable response to the nature of the risks posed by RRA. Separate and apart from NEPA‘s requirement of an EIS, these risks were sufficiently serious, in my view, that the court‘s injunction was a permissible exercise of its equitable authority.
The District Court found that gene transfer can and does occur, and that if it were to spread through open land the environmental and economic consequences would be devastating. Cf. Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U. S. 531, 545 (1987) (“Environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration, i. e., irreparable“). Although “a mere possibility of a future nuisance will not support an injunction,” courts have never required proof “that the nuisance will occur“; rather, “it is sufficient ... that the risk of its happening is greater than a reasonable man would incur.” 5 J. Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence and Equitable Remedies § 1937 (§ 523), p. 4398 (2d ed. 1919) (first emphasis added). Once gene transfer occurred in American fields, it “would be difficult—if not impossible—to reverse the harm.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 195 (2010) (per curiam).
The Court suggests that the injunction was nonetheless too sweeping because “a partial deregulation need not cause respondents any injury at all ... ; if the scope of the partial deregulation is sufficiently limited, the risk of gene flow to their crops could be virtually nonexistent.” Ante, at 162-163. The Court appears to reach this conclusion by citing one particular study (in a voluminous record), rather than any findings of fact.12 Even assuming that this study is correct, the
Against that background, it was perfectly reasonable to wait for an EIS. APHIS and petitioners argued to the District Court that partial deregulation could be safely implemented, they submitted evidence intended to show that planting restrictions would prevent the spread of the newly engineered gene, and they contested “virtually every factual issue relating to possible environmental harm.” Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 570 F. 3d 1130, 1135 (CA9 2009). But lacking “the benefit of the development of all the relevant data,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 68a, the District Court did not find APHIS‘s and petitioners’ assertions to be convincing. I cannot say that I would have found otherwise. It was reasonable for the court to conclude that planting could not go forward until more complete study, presented in an EIS, showed that the known problem of gene flow could, in reality, be prevented.14
Finally, it bears mention that the District Court‘s experience with the case may have given it grounds for skepticism about the representations made by APHIS and petitioners. Sometimes “one judicial actor is better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.” Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 114 (1985). A “district court may have insights not conveyed by the record.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 560 (1988). In this case, the agency had attempted to deregulate RRA without an EIS in spite of ample evidence of potential environmental harms. And when the court made clear that the agency had violated
*
*
*
The District Court in this case was put in an “unenviable position.” Ibid. In front of it was strong evidence that RRA poses a serious threat to the environment and to American business, and that limits on RRA deregulation might not be followed or enforced—and that even if they were, the newly engineered gene might nevertheless spread to other crops. Confronted with those disconcerting submissions, with APHIS‘s unlawful deregulation decision, with a group of farmers who had staked their livelihoods on APHIS‘s decision, and with a federal statute that prizes informed decisionmaking on matters that seriously affect the environment,