Bill Description: Senate Bill 1432 would create a "rebuttable presumption" that a pesticide producer who complied with federal EPA regulations provided adequate warning about health and safety, regardless of other laws or court precedent. 

Rating: 0

NOTE: Senate Bill 1432 is similar to House Bill 653, introduced earlier this session, but this bill contains two meaningful improvements, including a sunset clause. 

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 1432 would create sections 22-3427 and 48-620, Idaho Code, to provide pesticide producers who comply with EPA labeling regulations a broad "rebuttable presumption that there was an adequate warning regarding health or safety and any relevant provision or doctrine of state law, including without limitation state tort law or relevant common law." 

This rebuttable presumption would apply "notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation to the contrary." The bill provides an exception if there is "clear and convincing evidence that the warning was inadequate to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or damage or that the warning was procured by fraudulent conduct."

Unlike House Bill 653, Senate Bill 1432 would only apply to the EPA "carcinogenicity classification for the pesticide under FIFRA, as such classification existed on July 1, 2024." The included date limitation preserves the ability of the Legislature to reconsider any future changes to this federal standard before they are incorporated into Idaho law. 

(0)

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?

Senate Bill 1432 raises some equal protection questions. Why is this special legal carveout being created solely for pesticide producers? There are many goods subject to federal labeling mandates, but only one whose producers would be shielded.

Unlike House Bill 653, however, Senate Bill 1432 includes a sunset date of June 30, 2027. This means the law would only be in effect for three years, unless the Legislature chooses to extend it, allowing its impact to be evaluated and any challenges it raises to be addressed. 

(0)