CFS et al v. EPA Reference : 19-72109 // 19-72280 Complaint date : August 20, 2019 Status : Not judged Place of jurisdiction : United States Plaintiffs types : Health/Food groups, Environmental NGOs Plaintiffs names : Center for Food Safety (CFS), Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Pollinator Stewardship Council Defendants : EPA, Andrew Wheeler Lawyers : Stephanie M. Parent, George A. Kimbrell, Sylvia Wu, Amy van Saun Case nature : Administrative Specificities : Application for judicial review Products : Sulfoxaflor, Insecticide, Neonicotinoid Requests : Review the orders of the EPA granting the unconditional registration for new uses of the active ingredient sulfoxaflor and amending the registration of existing uses to remove restrictions. Name of the Court : United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Jurisdiction level : Appellate (Appeal) Court Summary : On July 2019, EPA approves a larger use of the bee-killing pesticide sulfoxaflor even though its earlier approval from 2013 had been vacated by the 9th circuit court of appeals on Sept. 10, 2015 (Case 13-72346). On Aug. 20, 2019, CFS and CBD file a petition for review. They claim that EPA failed in its legal duty to compile "substantial evidence" required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA should also have consulted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure that the decisions will not jeopardize any listed species or destroy any of their critical habitats. EPA also failed in its legal duty to show that the approval would not result in unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, as required under FIFRA. During that time EPA asked the court to permit the continued sale and use of sulfoxaflor and a delay of seven years during which EPA will complete their legal duty. On Jan. 12, 2021, Federal Court Rejects Bid by EPA, Pesticide Industry to Keep Bee-Killing Pesticide Sulfoxaflor on Market Despite Known Risks to Endangered Species. On Feb. 16, 2021, plaintiffs file their opening brief. The intervenor’s consolidated brief is due March 30, 2021. Petitioners’ optional reply briefs are due April 20, 2021. On Apr. 12, EPA asked the Ninth Circuit in a brief to remand its registration of sulfoxaflor, but not to vacate the registration. On July 19, 2022, the EPA releases a draft biological evaluation showing that sulfoxaflor is potentially putting 24 species of insects in jeopardy of extinction, including Karner blue butterflies and American burying beetles, and is also potentially jeopardizing the ongoing existence of 94 plant species that depend on insect pollinators. Scientific references : Sulfoxaflor exposure reduces bumblebee reproductive success Related links : Petition for review Trump’s EPA Said This Bee-Killing Insecticide Is Safe, Now Beekeepers Are Suing Lawsuit Challenges Trump EPA's 200 Million-Acre Expansion of Bee-Killing Pesticide Federal Court Rejects Bid by EPA, Pesticide Industry to Keep Bee-Killing Pesticide Sulfoxaflor on Market Despite Known Risks to Endangered Species Rejection by the 9th circuit of EPA, Pesticide Industry to Keep Bee-Killing Pesticide Sulfoxaflor on Market's request on a 7 years delay Opening brief, Feb. 16, 2021 Opening Brief Filed in Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration's Expansion of Bee-killing Insecticide Sulfoxaflor EPA Asks 9th Circuit to Remand, But Not Vacate, Sulfoxaflor Registration Brief of the EPA, Apr. 12, 2021 Sulfoxaflor DRAFT Biological Evaluation: Effects Determination for Endangered and Threatened Species and Designated Critical Habitats EPA Finds New Insecticide Is Putting Over 100 Species in Jeopardy of Extinction