RRVSG Assoc. v. Michael Regan, No. 22-1422 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Facing a tight deadline from the Ninth Circuit, the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops. Two environmental groups petitioned the EPA in 2007 to have all tolerances revoked. In denying the petition, the EPA concluded that their objections were “not supported by valid, complete, and reliable evidence.”
The Eighth Circuit granted the petitions, finding that the EPA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court explained that in this case, the EPA believed it lacked discretion or at least acted that way. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion had already narrowed its options down to two: revoke the tolerances or modify them. With little time to act, the agency ruled out the second option, leaving only revocation by default. In doing so, however, it misread the statute and misunderstood the “scope of its discretion”. Therefore, the court set aside the decision as arbitrary and capricious. Further, the court explained that a partial ban was a real alternative for the EPA. It could have canceled some registrations and retained others that satisfied the statutory safety margin.
Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Environmental law. Agricultural groups challenge the EPA's decision to ban the use of the insecticide chlorpyrifos on all food crops in the United States. The order was entered in response to the Ninth Circuit's decision directing the agency to either revoke the tolerance levels currently approved for the chemical's use of various crops or modify them - see League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Regan, 996 F.3d 673 (9th Cir, 2021). Facing an expiring time deadline, the agency banned chlorpyrifos. This was error, as the agency had the authority to issue a partial ban, cancelling some registrations and retaining others that satisfied the statutory safety margin; the decision to ignore the modifications of some levels and simply ban all uses was arbitrary and capricious; the petitions for review are granted, the agency's orders are vacated, and the matter is remanded to the agency for further proceedings.
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.