Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (act) required that all pesticides sold in the United States be registered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant). Registration could be issued only if a pesticide would not have unreasonably adverse effects on human health or the environment. Any interested person could petition the EPA to cancel a registration on the basis that it posed unreasonable risks, and the act required that such petitions be resolved within a reasonable time. In 2009, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (plaintiff) filed an administrative petition with the EPA, seeking registration cancellation for a pesticide known as TCVP, which was used in pet products and posed known risks to children’s neurodevelopment. After five years without a response, the NRDC filed suit, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the EPA to respond to the administrative petition. While the suit was pending, the EPA denied the petition, prompting the suit’s dismissal. The NRDC then filed suit in the Ninth Circuit to directly challenge the EPA’s decision. The EPA had the issue remanded to itself, saying that it would conduct a new risk assessment. When the EPA subsequently issued a revised assessment finding that TCVP posed a risk to children’s health, it promised to issue a revised response to the NRDC’s petition within 90 days. However, two years later, the EPA had not done so. Consequently, in 2019, the NRDC filed another suit in the Ninth Circuit seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the EPA to respond to its 2009 petition.