At some time next month I will offer you my usual annual reflections on this Supreme Court term.
I make this note in advance, about a case SCOTUS has decided NOT to hear.
On June 21, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case of MONSANTO v. HARDEMAN.
In this matter a Californian man named Edwin Hardeman alleged RoundUp, a Monsanto product, had caused his cancer.
Hardeman received an award from a federal district court, applying California state law, of $25 million after a jury trial. But Monsanto has appealed, claiming that the matter is preempted by federal law, and the US EPA has concluded that the herbicide does not pose "any reasonable risk to man or the environment."
Monsanto appealed, and the 9th Circuit held for plaintiff. The US, under Trump, sought to intervene and take Monsanto's side before SCOTUS. The government, under Biden, has indicated that it takes Hardeman's view and wants the award to stand.
SCOTUS has decided not to hear the matter. This means presumably that Hardeman keeps his judgment and will get his money.
What else might it mean?
A Court in No Hurry
It might mean that this Court is in no hurry to narrow the scope of state law on torts. That is good news. That it is signalled by a dog that did NOT bark in the nighttime is, simply, what it is.
In the news coverage on the day of the decision not to hear Monsanto, the SCOTUS orders and decisions were overwhelmed by a lot of other matters (from Ukraine news to a new round of revelations from the Jan. 6 committee). Furthermore, even when the Court was mentioned that day, the marquee case was the "free exercise" ruling on a dispute that arose in Maine.
Of course, subsequent decisions that I WILL discuss in my annual reflections further overshadowed this.
But I will note for whatever value my noting might have that I think the Court's non-interference with Hardeman's pursuit of his rights is ... a good thing.
The Second Matter
Yesterday, June 27, the court AGAIN, for the second time in a week, declined to take up the issue of Round-Up. This time the case was MONSANTO CO. v. PILLIOD. The underlying facts were much the same (and again it arose out of California). The additional Thing to Know in this case is that Monsanto wanted to argue that the punitive-damages award it had been hit with in this case was a violation of the due process clause. (It was a multiple of four of the compensatory part of the award).
That difference justifies no distinction.
Having formerly worked on questions of tort law and federal preemption, but not having kept up nor read Monsanto v. Hardeman, my sense is that the EPA conclusion that the herbicide does not cause cancer does not prevent a jury from finding that it does, unless Congress said otherwise. The EPA's conclusion is evidence for the jury to consider, but not conclusive.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify, by "unless Congress said otherwise," I meant, "unless Congress said that EPA's conclusion is conclusive and blocks tort suits."
DeleteVery enlightening. And a timely choice, on your part. I have ideas on this, which I will hold, for now. Have harped on the current controversy, to no effect and without comment, agreement or rebuttal. No one affiliated or connected in any way to ' the conservancy' wants to acknowledge my observations or questions. Participatory democracy is sterile when those governed have to rely upon representatives who do not participate. Seems to me.
ReplyDeleteAlways go to hear from you.
Delete