7 U.S.C. § 7756

Preemption

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

(a) Regulation of foreign commerceNo State or political subdivision of a State may regulate in foreign commerce any article, means of conveyance, plant, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant product in order—(1) to control a plant pest or noxious weed;(2) to eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed; or(3) prevent the introduction or dissemination of a biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.(b) Regulation of interstate commerce(1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision of a State may regulate the movement in interstate commerce of any article, means of conveyance, plant, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant product in order to control a plant pest or noxious weed, eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed, or prevent the introduction or dissemination of a biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed, if the Secretary has issued a regulation or order to prevent the dissemination of the biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed within the United States.

(2) Exceptions(A) Regulations consistent with Federal regulations

A State or a political subdivision of a State may impose prohibitions or restrictions upon the movement in interstate commerce of articles, means of conveyance, plants, biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, or plant products that are consistent with and do not exceed the regulations or orders issued by the Secretary.

(B) Special need

A State or political subdivision of a State may impose prohibitions or restrictions upon the movement in interstate commerce of articles, means of conveyance, plants, plant products, biological control organisms, plant pests, or noxious weeds that are in addition to the prohibitions or restrictions imposed by the Secretary, if the State or political subdivision of a State demonstrates to the Secretary and the Secretary finds that there is a special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions based on sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment.

(Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, § 436, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 453.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesTransfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry inspection activities under this chapter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 231, 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 2015–2020 · leading case: Alika Atay v. Cnty. of Maui, 842 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alika Atay v. Cnty. of Maui, 842 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “We hold that the ordinance is expressly preempted by the Plant Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7756 (b), to the extent that it bans GE plants that the U.”

Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. Cnty. of Maui, 111 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (D. Haw. 2015). · cites it 4× “7 U.S.C. § 7756 (b); see also 7 C.F.R. § 301.”

Hawai'i Papaya Indus. Assn. v. Cnty. of Hawaii, 666 F. App'x 631 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “The GE Parties challenge the Ordinance on two grounds: (1) the Ordinance is expressly preempted by the Plant Protection Act (PPA), 7 U.S.C. § 7756 (b), in its application to plants that the U.”

Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co. (E.D. Mo. 2019). · cites it 2× “7 U.S.C.A. § 7756 . Thus, state law is preempted by the PPA when three conditions are met: (1) the state law would “regulate the movement in interstate commerce of” an “article, …plant,…[or] plant pest;” (2) the state law is imposed “in order to control…eradicate…or prevent the…”

Riceland Foods, Inc. v. Bayer CropScience US, 835 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2016). “One month after Riceland filed its federal lawsuit, Bayer moved for partial summary judgment on all non-producer claims based on the preemptive effect of the Plant Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7756 (a). If Bayer had prevailed on its motion for summary judgment, then all of…”

Hubbard v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal. 2020). “at 701 (quoting 7 U.S.C. § 7756 (b)(1)). Focusing on the text of the statute, the court 2 determined that three conditions needed to be met for a local law to be preempted and found all 3 three conditions satisfied: “(1) the local law must regulate ‘movement in interstate…”

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.