Bill Description: Senate Bill 1245 would exempt pesticide producers from liability under any "provision or doctrine of state law, including without limitation state tort law or relevant common law" as long as they were in compliance with federal EPA regulations.
Rating: -2
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
Senate Bill 1245 would create sections 22-3427 and 48-620, Idaho Code, to broadly exempt pesticide producers from liability under any "provision or doctrine of state law, including without limitation state tort law or relevant common law" as long as they were in compliance with federal EPA regulations related to registration, labeling, and "carcinogenicity classification." These exemptions would apply "notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation to the contrary."
There are numerous problems with this bill, starting with broadly subordinating state and local laws to changeable federal standards. The language of the bill even references "the most recent human health assessment" from the EPA as a relevant standard.
(-1)
Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws which discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion, or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?
Additionally, there are fundamental questions regarding the legitimacy and constitutionality of attempting to suspend tort law and common law to protect manufacturers from being held civilly liable for the harm their products may cause.
This bill brings to mind the ongoing efforts to hold vaccine manufacturers liable for vaccine-related injuries and deaths, which have largely been stymied by federal laws limiting their liability. (Though somewhat ironically, these same federal laws bar individual states from offering any expanded liability protections to vaccine manufacturers.)
While shielding favored industries from liability may not be strictly unconstitutional, it is certainly an aberration from the standards of justice on which our nation was founded and the principle of equal protection under the law.
(-1)
