When the EPA unilaterally revoked a pesticide tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), it arguably violated the right of pesticide manufacturers to an adjudicatory hearing. The action effectively banned the pesticide, and whether there is a right to a hearing in such circumstances has ramifications for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, food and beverages and certain consumer products as well.
Hearings are required whenever there are material issues of fact that are disputed between the government and the manufacturer. Despite four decades of safe product use in this case, EPA made changes in its risk assessment assumptions without providing a hearing. The D.C. Circuit deferred to EPA's decision, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The NAM and other groups filed an amicus brief 3/18/11 urging the Supreme Court to review this case. We argued that administrative agency hearings before a neutral factfinder are essential to due process, and that the lower court's ruling contravenes the FFDCA's hearing requirements. American industry relies on hearing rights, and the ruling in this case could affect not only rights under this statute, but also under statutes and regulations such as those covering packaging (Fair Packaging and Labeling Act), seabed mining (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regulations), the importation or exportation of natural gas (Department of Energy regulations), tax levies on property (IRS regulations), and air carrier agreements (Department of Transportation rules).
On May 31, 2011, the Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving the lower court's decision in place.