7 U.S.C. § 136n

Administrative procedure; judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) District court review

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, the refusal of the Administrator to cancel or suspend a registration or to change a classification not following a hearing and other final actions of the Administrator not committed to the discretion of the Administrator by law are judicially reviewable by the district courts of the United States.

(b) Review by court of appeals

In the case of actual controversy as to the validity of any order issued by the Administrator following a public hearing, any person who will be adversely affected by such order and who had been a party to the proceedings may obtain judicial review by filing in the United States court of appeals for the circuit wherein such person resides or has a place of business, within 60 days after the entry of such order, a petition praying that the order be set aside in whole or in part. A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Administrator or any officer designated by the Administrator for that purpose, and thereupon the Administrator shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which the Administrator based the Administrator’s order, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. Upon the filing of such petition the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm or set aside the order complained of in whole or in part. The court shall consider all evidence of record. The order of the Administrator shall be sustained if it is supported by substantial evidence when considered on the record as a whole. The judgment of the court affirming or setting aside, in whole or in part, any order under this section shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28. The commencement of proceedings under this section shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court to the contrary, operate as a stay of an order.

The district courts of the United States are vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce, and to prevent and restrain violations of, this subchapter.

(d) Notice of judgments

The Administrator shall, by publication in such manner as the Administrator may prescribe, give notice of all judgments entered in actions instituted under the authority of this subchapter.

(June 25, 1947, ch. 125, § 16, as added Pub. L. 92–516, § 2, Oct. 21, 1972, 86 Stat. 994; amended Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(4)(C), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3357; Pub. L. 100–532, title VIII, § 801(i), Oct. 25, 1988, 102 Stat. 2682; Pub. L. 102–237, title X, § 1006(b)(1), (2), (3)(P), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1895, 1896.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1991—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(b)(1), (2), (3)(P), substituted “the Administrator” for “he” before “based”, “the Administrator’s” for “his”, and “the Administrator” for “him” after “designated by”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(b)(1), substituted “the Administrator” for “he” before “may”.

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–532 amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: “Except as is otherwise provided in this subchapter, Agency refusals to cancel or suspend registrations or change classifications not following a hearing and other final Agency actions not committed to Agency discretion by law are judicially reviewable in the district courts.”

1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out provisions requiring the court to advance on the docket and expedite the disposition of all cases filed pursuant to this section.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–532 effective on expiration of 60 days after Oct. 25, 1988, see section 901 of Pub. L. 100–532, set out as a note under section 136 of this title.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date

For effective date of section, see section 4 of Pub. L. 92–516, set out as a note under section 136 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 113 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Env't Prot. Agency, 861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Env't Prot. Agency, 861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 18× “7 U.S.C. § 136n. FIFRA authorizes the district court to review the EPA’s “refusal .”

Nat'l Fam. Farm Coalition v. Usepa, 966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 11× “§ 2112 (a)(1)–(5), cited in 7 U.S.C. § 136n, which recognizes that petitions for review may be filed in multiple courts of appeal.”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 847 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “Second, they argued that FIFRA’s jurisdictional provisions, 7 U.S.C. § 136n(a)–(b), controlled, depriving the district court of jurisdiction for any reregistration decision made after notice and comment.”

United Farm Workers of Am. v. Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency, 592 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 18× “7 U.S.C. § 136n(a). The cardinal condition for district court jurisdiction is that the Administrator of the EPA has made a decision "not following a hearing.”

Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 6× “” 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b). We have jurisdiction under 7 U.”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 56 F.4th 55 (D.C. Cir. 2022). · cites it 8× “§ 1540 (g)(1), with FIFRA’s provision of exclusive jurisdiction in this court to review challenges “as to the validity of any order issued by the Administrator [or EPA] following a public hearing,” a term that there included a paper “hearing” effected through notice and…”

Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 613 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 7× “7 U.S.C. § 136n. 4 . EPA has generally limited use of such stop sale orders to "relatively serious” FIFRA violations.”

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 735 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction under 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b). This case presents four issues.”

Nat'l Fam. Farm Coalition v. Usepa, 960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “7 U.S.C. § 136n(a) (conferring jurisdiction in the district court for “final actions of the Administrator not committed to the discretion of the Administrator by law”).”

Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 791 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 4× “If the Agency simply issues notice of an intent to cancel and does not issue a notice of a hearing, the registrant may “demand” a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, at which it may present testimonial and documentary evidence. 7 U.S.C. §§ 136d(b)(1), (d).”

Dow Agrosciences LLC v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 637 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2011). · cites it 5× “The district court dismissed the action, concluding that the biological opinion is not reviewable under the APA because the EPA has not yet acted on the biological opinion and when it does issue a final order on whether to reregister the insecticides, the order, including the…”

Beyond Pesticides/Nat'l Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides v. Whitman, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003). · cites it 6× “3 In stark contrast, defendants contend that this Court cannot reach the merits of plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief because it lacks jurisdiction under Section 16 of the FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136n. According to defendants, the FIFRA requires “final action” before this Court…”

Show all 113 citing cases →

— 7 U.S.C. § 136n(a) — 42 cases

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 847 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2017). “Second, they argued that FIFRA’s jurisdictional provisions, 7 U.S.C. § 136n(a)–(b), controlled, depriving the district court of jurisdiction for any reregistration decision made after notice and comment.”

United Farm Workers of Am. v. Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency, 592 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). “7 U.S.C. § 136n(a). The cardinal condition for district court jurisdiction is that the Administrator of the EPA has made a decision "not following a hearing.”

Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 791 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011). “If the Agency simply issues notice of an intent to cancel and does not issue a notice of a hearing, the registrant may “demand” a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, at which it may present testimonial and documentary evidence. 7 U.S.C. §§ 136d(b)(1), (d).”

Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 801 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

Nat'l Fam. Farm Coalition v. Usepa, 966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020). “§ 2112 (a)(1)–(5), cited in 7 U.S.C. § 136n, which recognizes that petitions for review may be filed in multiple courts of appeal.”

— 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b) — 66 cases

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Env't Prot. Agency, 861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “7 U.S.C. § 136n. FIFRA authorizes the district court to review the EPA’s “refusal .”

Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015). “” 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b). We have jurisdiction under 7 U.”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 56 F.4th 55 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “§ 1540 (g)(1), with FIFRA’s provision of exclusive jurisdiction in this court to review challenges “as to the validity of any order issued by the Administrator [or EPA] following a public hearing,” a term that there included a paper “hearing” effected through notice and…”

— 7 U.S.C. § 136n(c) — 16 cases

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 447 F. Supp. 811 (W.D. Mo. 1978).

Frank B. Fiedler v. Charles Clark, Acting Dir. of the Dep't of Health of the State of Hawaii, 714 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1983).

Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 613 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “7 U.S.C. § 136n. 4 . EPA has generally limited use of such stop sale orders to "relatively serious” FIFRA violations.”

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 615 F. Supp. 811 (S.D. Ind. 1985).

Turner v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 848 F. Supp. 711 (S.D. Miss. 1994).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136n(e) — 1 case

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 202 F. Supp. 2d 437 (M.D.N.C. 2002).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136n(h) — 1 case

Friends Animals v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 383 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (D. Or. 2019).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.