Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Products Co.

764 Words4 Pages
Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Products Co. 473 U.S. 568 (1985) Judicial History: Under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Federal Insecticides, Fungicides, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), manufacturers were required to register their pesticides. EPA had a “me-too” process that allowed for the pesticide equivalent of generic drugs. Monsanto Corporation sued because EPA was making them publicize trade secrets, which they claimed was a taking. Congress reiterated in Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA that EPA should make administrative decisions about how much money these manufacturers would get for damages from loss of their trade secrets. Union Carbide sued because they felt that the decisions should be made by the judicial court, not an administrative agency. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the claims challenging the arbitration provisions were ripe for decision and that those provisions violated Article III. Standing was approved for all appellants, who took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts: Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data only if the "follow-on" and registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the data. The legislation provides for binding arbitration. However, if the registrants fail to agree on compensation, the arbitrator's decision is subject to judicial review only for "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct." The manufacturing firms engaged in the development and marketing of chemicals used in pesticides, appealed the EPA decisions and began proceedings in Federal District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the arbitration provisions. They argued EPA violated Article III of the Constitution by allocating to arbitrators the functions of judicial officers and by limiting

More about Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Products Co.

Open Document