Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 27, 2010 Decided June 21, 2010
Full case name	Monsanto Co., et al. v. Geertson Seed Farms, et al.
Docket no.	09-475
Citations	561 U.S. 139 (more) 130 S. Ct. 2743; 177 L. Ed. 2d 461
Case history
Prior	Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 570 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 558 U.S. 1142 (2010).
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
Majority	Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor
Dissent	Stevens
Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
National Environmental Policy Act; Plant Protection Act

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto.^[1] The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.^[2][3]

In 2005 the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) deregulated Monsanto's Roundup-ready alfalfa (RRA) based on an Environmental Assessment (EA) of Monsanto's RRA.^[4] In 2006, Geertson Seed Farm and others filed suit in a California district court against APHIS' deregulation of RRA.^[5] The district court disallowed APHIS' deregulation of RRA and issued an injunction against any new planting of RRA pending the preparation of a much more extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).^[6] The court also refused to allow a partial deregulation.^[1]

After losing an appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,^[7] Monsanto and others appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. In 2010 the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision to bar partial deregulation of RRA pending completion of the EIS. They stated that, before a court disallow a partial deregulation, a plaintiff must show that it has suffered irreparable injury. "The District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency’s completion of its detailed environmental review."^[1] The Supreme court did not consider the district court's ruling disallowing RRA's deregulation and consequently RRA was still a regulated crop waiting for APHIS' completion of an EIS.^[1] At the time, both sides claimed victory.^[8] This was the first ruling of the United States Supreme Court on genetically engineered crops.^[2]