*1 INTERVENOR PUBLIC v. WISCONSIN et al. MORTIER al. et 21, 1991 June April 1991 Decided Argued No. 89-1905. *3 Attorney Dawson, Thomas J. Assistant General of Wis- argued petitioners. consin, the cause for him With on the briefs was Linda K. Monroe.
Deputy argued Solicitor General Wallace the cause for the urging United States as amicus curiae him reversal. With Attorney on the brief were Solicitor General Assistant Stan% Sloan, Stewart, General M. and David C. Shilton. Clifford respondents. him argued With the cause for Kent Patti G. * Lewandowski. Richard J. brief was on the opinion the Court. of delivered White Justice In- Federal requires whether us consider This case (FIFRA Act), Fungicide, Act and Rodenticide secticide, pre-empts seq., 136 et C. amended, U. S. 163, as 61 Stat. by governments. We hold pesticides of that it does not. the State of filed for urging reversal were of amici curiae * Briefs Hawaii, and III, Attorney of Girard General by al. Warren Price Hawaii et Lav, General, H. Michaels, Attorneys James Deputy D. Steven Burris, Attorney Alabama, Roland W. Gen
Evans, Attorney of General Kansas, E. Attorney Michael General of Illinois, Stephan, T. Robert eral of Attorney Kelley, General Maine, Frank J. Attorney Carpenter, General Missouri, Webster, Frankie Attorney L. General Michigan, William Jr., Preate, Attorney Nevada, Ernest Attorney Papa, General Del Sue Utah, Dam, Attorney General Pennsylvania, Paul Van General Vermont; Conservation Attorney Amestoy, General Jeffrey L. Garsh, Inc., Robert by E. Susan et al. England, of New Foundation Law Abbene; Institute of Munici McDonnell, National L. E. and Maris Jr., Thornton, Alfton, I. William Robert J. pal Law et al. Officers A. Milford, al. Patti Michigan, et Village of Muncy; for the Analeslie Goldman, Moirison, and Brian man. Alan B. Wolf filed for the State affirmance were urging curiae of amici Briefs *4 California, Attorney of Lungren, General by Daniel E. et al. California Connett, General, H. Walston, Attorney R. Assistant E. Chief Roderick III, Attorney Deputy General, W. Attorney and Charles Getz Assistant respective as fol- General, their States Attorneys for by the General and Indiana, Arizona, Joseph Linley E. of J. Pearson Woods of lows: Grant Jr., Jersey, and Curran, Kenneth Maryland, Robert J. Del ofNew Tufo Nursery- Association of for the American Eikenberry Washington; 0. Kirshner; A. for Provorny and Robert by A. men et al. Frederick and Rademacher Richard John J. Farm Bureau Federation American Ostrach; Krause; by Stephen for Industry S. Council for Green L. Lonardo; by Joseph D. for America Lawn Care Association Professional Ebner; for et al. Lawrence Association National Pest Control Kamenar, D. Popeo, Paul by Daniel J. Legal Washington Foundation Scully. and John C.
601 J-H A FIFRA was enacted in 1947 to replace Federal Gov- ernment’s first effort at pesticide the Insecticide regulation, Act of 36 1910, Stat. 331. 61 Stat. 163. Like its predeces- sor, FIFRA as originally “was adopted primarily a licensing and labeling statute.” Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., U. S. In 1972, environmental growing concerns led safety to undertake a comprehensive revision of FIFRA the Federal through Environmental Pes- ticide Control Act. 86 Stat. 973. The 1972 amendments significantly strengthened FIFRA’s registration and labeling standards. § 7 U. S. C. 136a. To make help certain that pesticides be applied accordance with these stand- ards, the revisions further insured that FIFRA “regulated use, as well as the sale and labeling, pesticides; regu- lated pesticides produced and sold in both intrastate in- terstate commerce; provided review, [and] for cancellation, supra, Ruckelshaus, suspension registration.” 991-992. An additional change was the grant of increased en- forcement to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which had been with federal charged oversight since pesticides 1970. See Plan No. 3 Reorganization 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. (1970), 5 U. S. C. App., p. 1343. In fashion, the 1972 amendments “transformed FIFRA from a law into a labeling comprehensive regulatory statute.” S., 467 U. at 991.
As amended, FIFRA several roles for specifies state and local authorities. statute, authorizes example, EPA Administrator to enter into cooperative agreements with the enforce FIFRA provisions. U. S. C. 136u, 136w-1.As of the part enforcement scheme, §§ FIFRA requires manufacturers in produce records for spection officer “upon request of the Envi employee ronmental Protection or of Agency any State or sub political 136f(b). division, duly designated by Administrator.” *5 cooperate Administrator the EPA directs further any political or agency State of “any appropriate 136t(b). particular relevance § Of thereof.” subdivision regulate may sale the 24(a) specifies § case, does long the state pesticides as so of or use 136v(a). by Act. prohibited the use permit or a sale B community Casey, rural is a small of town the Petitioner, miles north County, Wisconsin, several in Washburn located the Superior.1 1985, In road Spooner, on the of west pes regulates use the 85-1, which adopted Ordinance town statutory defini expressly borrows ordinance The ticides. was enacted FIFRA, and and laws Wisconsin from both tions (5) (1989-1990), accord §§ 61.34(1), which Stat. Wis. under taxing powers.2 police, and health, general village boards application of permit requires ordinance public subject to private lands public lands, to pesticide to enough to large persons, 400 to of from a population has town Directory County Washburn See in this case. at issue ordinance the enact Arg. 12. 4; 4, Tr. of Oral n. Respondents for 1982-83, in Brief cited 61.34(1) provides: Section the have shall law, board village the provided “Except otherwise finances, highways, village property, and control management power service, shall and waters, public and streets, navigable commercial village, for its good order and government act for the public, and convenience health, safety, welfare and benefit suppression, license, regulation, into effect carry powers its may and fine, imprison- assessment, appropriation, taxation, special borrowing, hereby con- powers means. The necessary convenient ment, other only by limited be grants shall all other be addition ferred shall express language.” 61.34(5) provides: Section self- measure largest villages giving purpose “For XI, section of article spirit with the in accordance
government lib- chapter shall that this hereby declared it is constitution [Wisconsin] villages to privileges powers rights, favor of erally construed vil- prosperity of such welfare, good order peace, general promote the thereof.” inhabitants and the lages
603 private any pesticide application the aerial use, or for applicant permit § App. A6. 2 Pet. for Cert. 1.2, lands. proposed including the about information file a form must days the desired use. before pesticide than 60 use not less may “deny permit, § 1.3(2), the board id., at 7. The town any permit grant . . . reason permit, with grant the the or pro permitted application related to aon able conditions safety of the residents and welfare health, of the tection 1.3(3), § Casey.” After an initial id., at 11-12. the Town of may any a applicant obtain resident or town decision, regarding pro provide hearing information additional per 1.3(4), (5), §§ a application. at 12-14. When posed id., fur granted conditions, the ordinance granted, with mit is placards giving post permittee notice of requires ther prescribing a information pesticide label and of use § 1.3(7), reentry id., 14-16. Persons found time. safe up subject violating to fines guilty are the ordinance 1.3(7)(c), id., at 16. violation. for each $5,000 permit applied Ralph for aerial Respondent for a Mortier granted him a portion The town spraying of his land. aof spraying and restricted precluded permit, aerial but spraying Mortier, ground be allowed. which lands on Forestry/Rights- respondent conjunction Wisconsin declaratory judgment brought ac- of-Way/Turf Coalition,3 County against for Washburn Court in the Circuit tion claiming Casey members, named board town of by pre-empted federal Casey’s state and is ordinance town of attor- Intervenor, an assistant Public The Wisconsin law. protection charged with the ney general state law under §§ rights, 165.075 public 165.07, Wis. Stat. environmental objection party (1989-1990), de- as a without admitted was summary judgment, the Cir- cross-motions fendant. On holding town’s that the Mortier, in favor of ruled Court cuit of individual nonprofit association unincorporated, coalition is pesticides. members use whose associations and other businesses statute, pre-empted FIFRA and state both
ordinance
App.
14.
to Pet. for Cert.
§§ 94.67-94.71;
Supreme
affirmed
a 4-to-3 deci-
Court of Wisconsin
Casey,
2d
demonstrated a
pesticides by
prohibit “any regulation
local
sional intent to
government.” Id.,
2,
30,
n.
452 N. W.
20,
2d,
units of
at
at
560. The court’s decision accorded with the
555,
2,n.
judgments
Appeals.
of two Federal Courts of
Professional
(CA6 1990);
Association
II Supremacy VI, Art. Clause, Const., 2, Under the U. S. cl. contrary with, that “interfere or are to the laws of state laws congress, pursuance in made of the constitution” are invalid. (1824) J.). (Marshall, Ogden, 211 1, v. 9 Wheat. Gibbons C. may pre-empt ways in which federal law state are law congres- and in the first instance turn on well established Ingersoll-Rand McClendon, intent. Co. v. 498 sional U. S. (1990). Congress’ supplant 133 intent to state a may express terms of the statute. particular in the be field (1977). Packing Ab- 519, 430 U. S. Co., v. Rath Jones Congress’ language, to su- intent explicit pre-emptive sent implicit may given persede nonetheless in a area law state pervasive as to make is “so if of federal a scheme Congress room for left no inference reasonable the supplement . . . if “the Act of it,” the States is so dominant touch[es] interest the federal a field which preclude system enforce- assumed will be that the federal goals subject,” ifor on the same state laws ment of “obligations imposed” reveal “sought and the obtained” to be authority. Fe Ele- preclude Rice v. Santa purpose state & See Gas Corp., U. S. vator Pacific Energy De- Resources Conservation v. State Elec. Co. (1983). When velopment 190, 203-204 Comm’n, 461 U. S. assumption considering pre-emption, “we start super- police powers not to be were of the States historic mani- the clear and that was Federal Act unless seded *8 supra, Congress.” purpose at 230. Rice, fest occupy particular not chosen has Even when may fed- that state and pre-emption the extent occur field, actually when “com- arises a conflict conflict. Such law eral physical regulations ais pliance federal and state both Growers, Inc. v. impossibility,” Avocado Florida Lime & (1963), state law when a 142-143 or 132, 373 U. S. Paul, accomplishment and execution to the an obstacle “stands as Congress,” objectives Hines v. purposes of the full (1941). S. 52 Davidowitz, 312 U. purposes finally, of the Su that “for axiomatic is,
It constitutionality ordinances is premacy of local Clause, way Hills analyzed laws.” of statewide as that in the same Laboratories, County Inc., borough Medical Automated v. (1985). g., City Burbank v. e. See, 707, 471 U. S. Terminal, 411 U. S. Inc., Air Lockheed
{ l-H I—I—I principles, Applying FIFRA does we conclude that these explicitly implic- pre-empt either or the town’s ordinance itly by virtue of an actual conflict. or
A recognized, Supreme FIFRA no- Court As the Wisconsin regulation pesticide supersedes expressly use. where statutory language purported to find court, however, pre-emptive in intent the statute’s indicative” of “which is “Authority delineating provision 7 U. S. C. of States.” key portions provision state: 136v. “(a) may regulate the or use of fed- A State sale ... erally pesticide registered State, or device in the but permit only does not if and to the extent prohibited by subchapter. sale or use “(b) impose in or continue . . . State shall not Such labeling packaging any requirements ad- effect required under this from those dition to or different subchapter.” eyes, significant, FIFRA’s failure to in the court’s Also defining specify political State, “a “State” as subdivisions Rico, of Puerto Columbia, the Commonwealth the District Territory Virgin the Pacific Guam, the Trust Islands, §136(aa). and American Samoa.” Islands, Supreme Court, however, clear to the State It was not 136(aa)] statutory language [§§ alone 136v and “that the political congress’ deprive evince[d] intent to subdi- manifest regulate pesticides.” Casey, 154Wis. visions of 2d, at 557-558. It was nevertheless 452 N. W. 2d, statutory language “possible” alone that infer from the *9 pre-empted; pesticide regulation local entities history, language legislative coupled “un- that with its when Congress pre-empt mistakably to the intent of demonstrates Casey.” adopted by as that the Town of such local ordinances holding thus N. at 559. The court’s 2d, 452 W. Id., 136(aa) legislative §§136v his- and their on both rested history legislative language tory; nor the neither the suggestion absent that no There was alone. have sufficed sufficiently compre- was a sections, two critical the justify that had an inference to statute hensive have Nor of the States. occupied exclusion field to the argued effect. On that respondents in this Court to opinion sufficiently under the clear that hand, it is the other would have been below, State the court announced regulate permitting authorities to precluded local pesticides. language nor its of the statute agree neither the
We pre-empt history, standing to suffice legislative alone, would con- even when regulation. that, view it is also our But local language materials together, sidered necessary to demonstrate are insufficient on below relied statutory pre-empt. lan- congressional As for intent to express pre- convey wholly inadequate guage, it is plainly authorizes 136v emptive its own. Section intent on plainly just regulate pesticides is silent as the “States” governments. in this silence, Mere to local with reference and manifest a “clear to establish context, cannot suffice supra, authority. pre-empt at 230. Rice, purpose” local regulatory grant express if FIFRA’s Even municipalities, applying read as not be could regula- municipalities no were left with not follow would tory authority. localities could mean that it would Rather, upon authority explicitly regulatory conferred claim the pre-empted might been otherwise the States minimum, At a through federal law. actual conflicts subject regulate to the usual be free would still localities pre-emption. principles of statutory language tilts favor Properly read, the “‘govern- principle that local is well settled
regulation. The agencies for exercis- convenient as units are “created mental may powers governmental ing of the State such of *10 608 Sail- [its] discretion.’” absolute in ... them” to
entrusted (1967), Cty., 105, 108 U. S. Kent Ed. Board ors v. of of (1964),quoting 533, 575 Sims, 377 U. Reynolds v. quoting (1907). The exclu- Pittsburgh, U. S. v. Hunter the be inferred cannot political subdivisions sion of political “State[s]” because the to express authorization entity very the statute components the of are subdivisions reading FIFRA’s plausible of more empowers. the Indeed, regulatory of allocation the leaves the States to authorization authority them- the States of discretion” “absolute to the pes- leaving of option local including of the selves, authorities. the hands ticides pre-emption exists. for basis Certainly textual no other below, contends upon building decision Mortier, distinction a clear made provisions show other delegated authority, to the it nonregulatory which between regulatory author- subdivisions, and political their or “State[s]” alone. delegated expressly ity, which his however, undercut relies, he provisions on which example, that the 136t(b), mandates for Section contention. agency “any appropriate cooperate with EPA Administrator carrying thereof, any political subdivision any or State matter, subchapter.” initial anAs this provisions of out the subchapter” provisions “the limit does the section “nonregula- carry out authorized are localities which tory” provisions. pre- provision to read Moreover, require result the anomalous also empting localities agency it exer- any extent to the pre-empting actions regula- pesticide powers included state-delegated cised produce 136f(b) requires manufacturers Likewise, tion. employee any request upon inspection records duly political subdivision, State “or the EPA 136u(a)(l), how- Section designated Administrator.” “delegate to State Administrator ever, authorizes of this cooperate enforcement in the . the . . use of “State” personnel.” If the through its use of [Act] why impliedly it is unclear subdivisions, excludes in FIFRA *11 designation officials provision of local allow the the one prohibit purposes local the other would while enforcement for authority altogether. enforcement that have courts below and other like the court
Mortier, attempts compensate statute’s pre-emption, to found history. by stressing inadequacies textual Pro- Casey, 2d, 558-559; at 25-28, 452 N. W. 2d, 154Wis. 2d, F. at 933-934. Association, 909 Lawn Care fessional meaning which centers on source, The evidence from ambiguous. 136v, is at best become of what would accompanying Report Agriculture Committee House “rejected a proposed that it had stated FIFRA amendments permitted political proposal subdivisions which would grounds regulate pesticides 50 that the on the to further provide an ade- should and the Federal Government Rep. jurisdictions.” regulatory H. R. quate number (1971). p. an indicates While this statement 92-511, No. reg- political by Congress grant unwillingness subdivisions pre- ulatory authority, an intent it not demonstrate does authority delegating to its subdi- such vent the States prohibit local it show desire still less does visions, altogether. statement, how- regulation one other At least concededly goes on Committee The Senate further. ever, outright Report Forestry it “con- Agriculture states po- deprive of the House Committee the decision sidered authorities of and other local of States litical subdivisions pesticides jurisdiction concurs over Rep. Representatives.” S. of the House the decision (1972). p. 16 92-838, No. clearly disagreed. Members of
But other jurisdiction which also had Committee, Senate Commerce Agriculture “[w]hile [Senate] bill, observed over govern- prohibit specifically local does not bill Committee report pesticides, commit- regulating of that ments from regulate governments explicitly cannot local tee states reg- Many governments now local pesticides in manner. they specific which needs own their pesticides meet ulate Federal perceive are State than able are better often (1972). p. To counter Rep. 92-970, regulators.” No. Forestry Re- Committee Agriculture and language in the ex- proposed amendment port, Committee the Commerce among other, regulation numerous authorizing pressly rejected after amendment proposals. This unrelated Cong. See 118 two Committees. negotiations between p. Rep. 92-1540, (1972); No. H. R. Conf. Rec. 32251 principal two left with were matters result, aAs disagreement over responsible the bill Committees by political sub- pre-empted pesticide whether *12 even moreover, that important note, is It divisions. pre-emptive effect to the disagreement confined was this power regulatory to the States of authorization of FIFRA’s asserted mentioned § Committees of the None in 136v. regulation. pesticide of field pre-empted the that history far legislative thus falls the text, Like FIFRA’s pesticide pre-emption local establishing that short purpose Con- and manifest the “clear agree the with thus at 230. We gress.” S., 331 U. Rice, express- of the United brief amicus in the submission charged agency enforc- the ing EPA, the views the ing FIFRA.4 prob into several history runs legislative foray into Scalia’s Justice Com Agriculture the House argues that one, concurrence For his
lems. its picture” of the because “out localities that it wanted it clear made mittee the local permitting rejecting proposal a grounds Report specifies as Government that the Federal observation regulate pesticides ities to jurisdictions. regulatory adequate number provided 50 States and the opposed the Committee way infer that only Post, at 617. But but state authority upon also localities regulatory grant of only direct “reg suppose that the term authority regulate be delegation any exercising purposes regulatory for meant ulatory jurisdictions” a direct authority from exercising derived opposed authority all
B provide clear and manifest Likewise, FIFRA fails to authority supplant Congress sought to local indication that 92-511, Rep. p. language The of the grant. federal H. R. No. way Report question one or another. does not answer this Agriculture Commit- further contends that the Senate concurrence deprive § be read to unequivocally expressed tee its view that 136v should true, may it pesticide. This be but regulatory localities of over sufficiently ambiguous justify § hardly dispositive. Even if 136vwere is history, puts a committee forward must meaning reliance on provision, fairly meanings that the at a minimum be within the realm of § read, clearly that 136v Report states should could bear. Here just provision that the is writ- prohibition, but it is as clear read as a clearly report pur- exclusively matter how its grant. ten in terms of a No language that so, Congress cannot take could ports to do a committee of really the courts that it covers only “mosquitoes,” “flies” or and tell cover “ducks.” Commerce
Finally, suggests that the Senate Committee the concurrence Agriculture of the two Committees Report reconfirmed the views Post, regulation. at 618-620. But the prohibited pesticide local 136v otherwise, states, clearly or point Committee at no Commerce Rather, Report states agrees that section before it does this. “[wjhile prohibit specifically Agriculture Committee bill does not report that committee regulating pesticides, governments regulate pesticides in governments cannot explicitly that local states added). (1972) 92-970, (emphasis p. 27 Com- Rep. No. manner.” S. Committee, indeed, policy its differences with its went on to assert merce by attempting to strike at the root of counterpart. It did Agriculture *13 provision Far language of the itself. changing the problem through the rival, words its the Commerce Committee’s showing agreement with from that, first, ground meaning no on the of body conceded show a and actions then, second, by seeking the stakes raised disputed language and the only way. the go its On both existence language the could insure that can no doubt regulation, on local there desirability prohibition of a the opposite Agriculture stood on the Committees the Commerce that debate. of the Senate sides all, history sug- at common sense propriety using of As reviewing additional information rather inquiry from that benefits gests it, “[wjhere put the mind Marshall it. As Chief Justice ignoring than every thing legislature, the it seizes design of to discover labours Fisher, 358, 2 v. Cranch United States can be derived.” which aid reject particular, we impliedly. In pesticide over below, that court not but courts, position some comprehensive into transformed amendments regulation, and pesticide occupied field that statute field portions specific opened provisions certain that regula portions to local smaller much regulation and state 933-934; 2d, at F. Care, Lawn tion. See Professional also Supp., 110-111; see F. Control, 646 Maryland Pest as Amici al. et Association Pest Control National Brief Ami as Washington Legal Foundation Brief for 6-16; Curiae argued, assumption, has been it this 5-18. On cus Curiae pes general opening field 136v(a) § be viewed could political leaving yet closed it regulation to the ticide subdivisions. matter, initial an unpersuasive. As reasoning is This ordinary con- canons under shown to be still would “State[s]” delegation FIFRA’s that struction redelegate in turn the States allow therefore not would either political subdivisions authority to their some existing statutes leaving their undisturbed specifically or ample government with provide local otherwise 136v(a) § already noted regulate. haveWe authority to redelega- precisely such contemplate plausibly read can be political self-limiting sub- since is not “State” term tion. components of the whole. merely subordinate are divisions elsewhere political subdivisions mention The scattered legisla- here. require their exclusion not FIFRA does ambiguous. complex history is tive inferred. pre-emption cannot be importantly, field More inference. such undercuts place, itself 136v first In the misleading that so generally are history materials (1805). Legislative legisla- to discern effort good-faith ain employ them never should jurists of uti- practice the Court’s demonstrate precedents Our intent. tive v. See, g., Wallace e. past. its well into history reaches lizing legislative practice will like- suspect that We Parker, 687-690 6 Pet. future. into well reach wise *14 grant immediately following provision the statute’s “[s]uch that State
regulatory declares to the States any requirements for impose in effect or shall not continue packaging or different those labeling in to addition 136v(b). language § would This required FIFRA. under” occupy Congress surplusage pure had intended if pre-emption Taking regulation. pesticide such entire field of 136v(a) grant § the author- premise, States would thus as the 136v(b) § pesticides, while ity regulate or use” of the “sale have the author- superfluously did not that States add would ity “labeling packaging,” an addition that regulate given doubly superfluous historic FIFRA’s been begin at labeling Monsanto, S.,U. See with. on focus 991. pre-emption. imply While FIFRA otherwise does
Nor “comprehensive FIFRA into turned the 1972amendments resulting supra, regulatory Monsanto, at statute,” in- pervasive reasonable the to make not “so scheme supple- States no room the left ference contrary, supra, the statute To the Rice, it.” 230. ment supplement ample localities to room for leaves regulatory express authoriza- efforts even absent federal aspects §136v(a). numerous addresses FIFRA tion of reg- particular: in detail, pesticide control considerable applicator § certification, 136a; classification, istration and §§ production pesticide facilities, 136e § inspection 136b; pesticides possible seizure 136g; ban and the require- federal fail to meet or otherwise are misbranded goal general provisions § reflect These ments, 136k. labeling require- existing strengthen amendments the 1972 requirements were followed these and ensure ments supra, at 991-992. Monsanto, practice. See 136k. portions the field substantial leaves nonetheless FIFRA no- including in this case. issue area at vacant, permit scheme an affirmative to establish where seeks reg- equate certainly pesticides. It does actual use of *15 614 approval general a requirements labeling with and
istration regard to throughout without Nation the pesticides apply to geography, population, climate, like regional localfactors and supplant, may it FIFRA else supply. Whatever water and general or regulation in pesticide occupy field of not does particular. permitting use of local area fields, the pre-empted implicitly other to contrast In pesti- of the use that mean not does FIFRA of enhancement subject fed- to permission, “‘only federal occur can cides personnel federally certified of hands inspection, in the eral City commands.’” system federal an intricate under and S., at Inc., 411 U. Terminal, Air Lockheed v. Burbank of 634, Minnesota, 322 U. S. v. Airlines quoting Northwest grant specific concurring). The (1944) (Jackson, J., hand to 136v(a) serve consequently not § does authority in impliedly had the statute powers that States to back con- could that ensure acts usurped. Rather, it re- as where, such even sales regulate and use tinue pre- products, a narrow banning of mislabled gard discussion in our As noted overlap might occur. emptive Congress intended that is doubtful pre-emption, express 136v(a)’s authorization, scope of localities exclude regulation issue type may be, the however but pre-empted field. any impliedly fall within not here would C either conflict actual no discern Finally, EPA, we like the or between us before ordinance FIFRA between not generally. does Mortier regulation and local FIFRA or- compliance theory with the that rely, he, on could nor Florida impossibility.” “physical ais dinance Instead, 142-143. at S., U. Growers, Avocado & Lime an obstacle stands ordinance urges the town’s he is pesticide promoting goals of statute’s that rests levels, and state solely the federal on coordinated not expertise, that does degree technical upon some unduly burden interstate commerce. Each one these as- snippets sertions on rests little more than his- tory policy speculations. convincing. None of them is begin suggest goal
To regula- with, FIFRA does tory sweeps exclusively coordination that either as or as broadly gives as Mortier contends. The statute no indication sufficiently goal concerned about this require pre-emption simply of local use ordinances because *16 they locally. suggests were enacted Mortier otherwise, quoting legislative history which states that FIFRA estab- system lishes “a coordinated Federal-State administrative carry program,” raising specter out gypsy the new safely navigating through moth hordes thousands of contra- dictory municipal regulations. Rep. ineffective H. R. plain, 92-511, No. 1-2. As we have made statute does expressly impliedly preclude regulatory not by or po- action regard litical contrary, with subdivisions to local use. To the implies regulatory partnership FIFRA a federal, between 136t(b) governments. state, and expressly Section cooperate states any that the Administrator “shall with . . . appropriate agency any political or State subdivision carrying provisions thereof, [Act] out the of this se- curing uniformity regulations.” suggest Nor does FIFRA any goal precludes that of coordination local use ordinances they independently specific because were enacted state or oversight. plain, federal As we have also made local use permit regulations labeling or certification—do not —unlike “program” fall within area pre-empts that FIFRA’s or plainly even addresses. There is no indication that co- promote ordination which the statute seeks extends be- yond strongly matters with deals, which it or so does enough compel independently the conclusion that an en- acted ordinance that falls outside reach statute’s frus- purpose. trates its provides
FIFRA even less indication that local ordinances yield statutory purposes promoting must technical maintaining commerce. expertise interstate unfettered history passages were isolated more, Once congres- pre-emptive to establish insufficient themselves legislative goals establish themselves sional intent do not Rep. g., 92-838, at pre-emptive e. No. See, effect. with ordinances neces- that local asserts 16. Mortier nonetheless expertise sarily and burden commerce insufficient rest on crop things, large-scale among allowing, infestation. other Congress gypsy specter free to moth, is As with the havoc and enact does wreak such find that local preventing purpose it. We are satis- legislation yet. done so has not however, fied, 1—1 > pre-empt the town of not does We hold pesticides. regulating Casey’s the use of ordinance Supreme judgment reversed, Court is of the Wisconsin proceedings inconsistent with remanded for the case is opinion.
It is so ordered. *17 in the Scalia, concurring judgment. Justice pre-empt agree FIFRA does I with the Court agree regulation, I the terms of the statute do because pesti- pre-emption of the entire field manifest a not alone pre- regulation. If were field at 611-614. there Ante, cide emption, § re- be understood not as 136v would 7 U. S. C. (for purpose regulation types stricting which of state certain their but not subdi- little sense to restrict States it makes visions) types authorizing certain of state but as (for purpose sense to authorize it makes eminent which subdivisions). field-pre-emption But the their but not Congress’ certainly question selective use a close one. is political thereof” would subdivisions and “State “State” suggest restricting meaning authorizing rather than pointed usage into the inconsistent were it not for 136v, opinion. I of the Court’s Part today recognizes,
As the Court see ante, 606-607, the justices agreed point, Wisconsin with me on this and would way have come out the that I and the Court do but Reports Committee contained FIFRA’s his- tory. they entirely I right think were about the tenor of Reports. only those failing recognize Their mistake was how Reports only unreliable genu- Committee are—not as a congressional ine predictor indicator of intent but aas safe judicial construction. We use them when it convenient, is ignore them when it is not.
Consider how the case been if resolved Reports seriously: Committee were taken to amend bill (H. 10729) reported R. out of the House Com- Agriculture September mittee on on According 25, 1971. accompanying Report: Committee rejected proposal “The Committee which would have permitted political regulate pesti- subdivisions to further grounds cides on the that the 50 States Federal provide adequate Government reg- should number of ulatory jurisdictions.” Rep. p. H. R. No. 92-511, grounds rejection specified, Had the not been it would possible speculation, to entertain the Court’s ante, at might opposing only that the Committee have been direct con- upon authority regulate, ferral localities of in contrast to delegation regulate. spec- state But once it is regulatory jurisdictions ified that an excessive number of is problem “50 States and the Federal Government” —that enough are clear becomes the Committee —then picture, thought wanted localities out of the that its bill placed them there. Agriculture passed House Committee’s bill was *18 upon
full House on November 9, 1971, and transmittal the Agriculture Senate was referred to the Senate Committee on Forestry, reported and which it out on June 7, 1972. The accompanying Report clearly Committee both confirms the Report, Committee interpretation of House
foregoing the interpretation disposition that clearly the endorses and produces. the House Com- have] the decision
“[We considered of States and political deprive subdivisions mittee jurisdiction authority any or authorities other concu[r] decision pesticides with and over fifty Clearly, and Representatives. House jurisdictions provide sufficient Government Federal any, if Moreover, few, pesticides. regulate properly villages, or counties, towns, whether local authorities provide municipalities wherewithal the financial pro- comparable regulation necessary expert thisOn Governments. and Federal the State vided regulation permitting such basis on the and basis it commerce, on interstate burden an extreme any providing by not [136v], section the intent is other local au- and authority political subdivisions be understood States, should in the thorities of political subdi- depriving local authorities such jurisdiction over all visions of Rep. pesticides.” pesticides added). (1972) (emphasis pp. 16-17 92-838, No. “directing” in- how to language the courts committee Clearer if and such found, couldnot be terpret a statute interpreta- binding question of effect, had direction question all. be no case would tion Agriculture Senate After the more. is still there But it was re-referred reported floor, to the the bill Committee July reported out on Commerce, which on Committee plus accompa- Report Committee, of that 1972. 19, of H. R. nying proposals for amendment reconfirmed Agriculture Com- interpretation and House the Senate Report said: mittees. *19 spe- Agriculture bill does not Committee
“While regulating pes- cifically governments prohibit local explicitly report states of that committee ticides, the regulate pesticides in governments cannot that local regulate pesti- Many governments now local manner. they specific are needs which to meet their own cides perceive and Federal than are State able to often better p. Rep. regulators.” 92-970, No. S. plus passage, amendment that claims Court principal explains, re- Committees “the two
it show that disagreement [were] over whether sponsible in bill by political pesticide subdivisions.” pre-empted it practiced than others I am less 610. I confess that Ante, at history, construing but it seems in the science opposite quite The Senate Com- is the case. to me Report inter- not offer a different does Committee merce pre-emptive R. 10729. To the pretation effect of H. Report originating contrary, acknowledges of the that the governments explicitly can- local “states Committee proceeds pesticides regulate and then manner,” not regulate pes- (“Many governments now local to a statement etc.”) questions existence but the not the ticides, which regulatory power. desirability on local of that restriction agree interpretation agreed did not but with the And since it proposed policy, Committee Commerce the Senate according purpose, whose 10729, to H. R. amendment authority governments “giv[e] Report, local was to its beyond require- pesticide regulate of a the sale or use Rep. imposed Federal authorities.” S. State ments Report, supplemental supra, In a at 27. 92-970, No. opposed Agriculture Com- the Commerce Committee Senate govern- “giv[e] local which it said would amendment, mittee’s pesticide,” regulate of a the sale or use ments the Agriculture thereby “vitiat[ing]” Re- Committee the earlier leg- supra, pt. Rep. 46-47. This port. 92-838, No. (as clearly history think, I demonstrates, islative it) principal Court that the would have two Senate Commit- disagreed pre-empted tees about whether H. R. 10729 regulation, they complete but that were accord did, that it *20 disagreement ought in over whether to. necessarily say anything
Of course that does not about Congress thought. Assuming what aas whole that all the (as question opposed members of the three Committees Subcommittees) just actually the relevant adverted to the interpretive point probably at issue here—which is an unreal- assumption assuming they istic further that were in —and agreement point, they repre- unanimous on the would still sent than less two-fifths of the Senate, and less than one- unlikely many tenth of the House. It is most that Members pertinent portions of either Chamber read the of the Commit- (we Reports voting assuming tee before on the cannot bill— sure) Reports that the were available before the vote. pertinent portions, though they Those dominate our discus- today, quarter-page sion constituted less than a of the 82- page Agriculture Report, House Committee and less than a half-page 74-page Agriculture each of the Senate Committee Report, 46-page Report, Senate Commerce Committee 73-page Agriculture Supplemen- and Senate Committee Report. Reports portion tal Those in turn were a minuscule reports of the total number that the Members of (and receiving presumably writing) during pe- were even question. riod In Senate, at least, there was a vote (the proposal) on an amendment Commerce Committee changed supposed interpreta- would have the result of the rejected tion. But the full Senate could have that either majority disagreed because a of its Members with the Com- proposed policy; they merce Committee’s or because disa- greed Agriculture with the Commerce Committee’s and the (and interpretation thought Committee’s thus the amend- superfluous); they blissfully ignorant ment or because were dispute simply thought the entire that the Commerce by asking proposing 15 Committee, for recommittal and being a or because three dif- amendments, troublemaker; (enough majority) ferent minorities to make a had each of respective way knowing; in- these reasons. We have no way they knowing rational deed, we have no had motive at all. adopted
All we know for sure is that the full Senate pur- House, text that we have before us as did the full here, procedures prescribed by Constitution; suant to the having that text, been transmitted to the President and again approved pursuant procedures pre- him, to the important scribed became law. Constitution, On question today, before us whether that law denies local throughout significant powers communities the Nation self-protection, try give we should the text its fair *21 meaning, might whatever various committees have had to say thereby affirming proposition that we a are Govern- — reports. laws, is, least, ment of not of committee That at way prefer proceed. I to meaning however,
If I that the a believed, of statute is to by reports, I be determined committee would have to con- meaning opposite judgment that a to com- clude our has been only by manded three times over—not in each one committee by Today’s House, but two Committees in of them. deci- one judicial application, in their that, sion reveals Committee re- ports interpretive device, are a an forensic rather than they support ignored when invoked when they the decision and my infinitely do To that is than not. mind better hon- estly giving dispositive them effect. But it better would be stop confusing Supreme and not Court, still Wisconsin reports to use committee at all.
[*] [*] [*] responds in footnote, ante, The Court to this concurrence history asserting legislative 610-612, 4, at n. that is 622 I must to judge. it the reader I leave ambiguous.
really of “practice that assertion the Court’s however, reply, past,” [our] into well reaches history legislative utilizing an it opinion cites proposition ante, which 4,n. 612, at himself, Wallace v. Marshall John than other none written ex- neglects the Court Parker, What Pet. utilizing legisla- of the “practice by. means that what is plain history legislative utilizing is not the practice history” tive to the mean- content authoritative of giving purpose to. I object practice the only is text —which statutory of a ing leg- an Ohio report statements factual used Marshall case, id., in the the record” part “as committee islative laws “under permissible that was that assuming 689, 690, is quite use. But to such ibid. object I do not Ohio,” relying upon practice the recent from different of a statu- interpretation authoritative provide material lateAs John Marshall. shocked text. That tory ac- is “a general there clearly stated 1897, quite we as are in Congress that debates in the doctrine quiescence discover which to information sources appropriate body.” passed statute of a language of the meaning Freight Assn., 166 U. v. Trans-Missouri United States using leg- 1953, the practice late as And even 318. 290, that Justice enough was novel fashion in that history islative Congress,” a “psychoanalysis it as dismiss could Jackson Utilities v. Public United endeavor.” and a “weird It Cal., opinion). (concurring Comm’n of U. S. *22 century— of this a phenomenon entirely almost short, is, See, phenomenon. recent very a use in its extensive g., Histories & Legislative Brann, Use e. Carro 9 J. Analysis, A Statistical Court: Supreme United the Use on Observations Wald, Some (1982); Legis. Term, Court 1981 Supreme in the History Legislative 196-197 Rev. L. Iowa the use is predicting if the Court
I am depressed . “will. . I criticized have history purpose prediction reach well into the future.” But if it is, and its perception continuing the future is as accurate as its that it is “practice reaching] past,” may [our] . . . into I well nothing to fear.