Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. County of Kauai, No. 14-16833 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter Kauai County passed Ordinance 960 to regulate pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) plants, plaintiffs filed suit challenging the Ordinance. Plaintiffs are companies that supply seed for GE plants. The Ordinance requires commercial farmers to maintain “buffer zones” between crops to which pesticides are applied and certain surrounding properties, provide notifications before and after applying pesticides, and file annual reports disclosing the cultivation of GE crops. The Hawaii Pesticides Law, HRS Ch. 149A, and its implementing rules also regulate pesticides, including by imposing notification requirements and conditions of use, such as locations of permissible use. The district court held that the Ordinance's pesticide provisions are preempted by Hawaii state law. The court concluded that the Hawaii Pesticides Law preempts Ordinance 960's pesticide provisions because both address the same subject matter, the State's scheme for the regulation of pesticides is comprehensive; and the legislature clearly intended for the State’s regulation of pesticides to be uniform and exclusive. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to certify the preemption issues to the Hawaii Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the Hawaii Pesticides Law impliedly preempts Ordinance 960’s pesticide provisions; affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Hawaii law impliedly preempts Ordinance 960’s GE crop reporting provision in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition; and affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to certify.
Court Description: Hawaii State Law / Preemption. The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the Hawaii Pesticides Law impliedly preempted Kauai County’s Ordinance 960’s pesticide provisions, which regulate pesticides and genetically engineered plants; and affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to certify the implied preemption question to the Hawaii Supreme Court. Ordinance 960 imposes pesticide notification requirements and mandates “pesticide buffer zones.” Kauai County Code § 22-23.5(a). Part III of the Hawaii Pesticides Law regulates the use of pesticides, including where pesticides may be applied. HRS § 149A-31-149A-37. The panel applied the Hawaii Supreme Court’s “‘comprehensive statutory scheme’ test,” Richardson v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 868 P.2d 1193, 1208 (Haw. 1994), to decide plaintiffs’ field-preemption claim under HRS § 46- 1.5(13). First, the panel held that Ordinance 960’s pesticide 4 SYNGENTA SEEDS V. CTY. OF KAUAI provisions and the Hawaii Pesticides Law addressed the same subject matter. Next, the panel held that the State’s scheme for the regulation of pesticides was comprehensive. Finally, the panel held that the Hawaii legislature clearly intended for the State’s regulation of pesticides to be uniform and exclusive. The panel concluded that Ordinance 960’s pesticide provisions were impliedly preempted by Hawaii law and beyond the County’s power. The panel held that certification to the Hawaii Supreme Court was unnecessary because the State’s test for implied state preemption was well-defined.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.