Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products (473 U.S. 568 (1985)
Facts: Thomas v Union Carbide Agriculture Products people would register their pesticides with EPA, under FIFRA. EPA had a 'me-to' process that allowed for the pesticide equivalent of generic drugs. Monsanto sued because EPA made them publicize their trade secrets, which they claimed was a taking. Congress came back and said that EPA should make administrative decisions about how much money these manufacturers would get for damages from loss of their trade secrets. Union Carbide sued because they felt that the decisions should be made by the judicial court, not an administrative agency.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires manufacturers of pesticides, as a precondition for registering a pesticide, to submit research data to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the product's health, safety, and environmental effects, and authorizes EPA to use previously submitted data in considering an application for registration of a similar product by another registrant ("follow-on" registrant). Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data only if the "follow-on" registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the data, and provides for binding arbitration if the registrants fail to agree on compensation. The arbitrator's decision is subject to judicial review only for "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct." Appellees, firms engaged in the development and marketing of chemicals used to manufacture pesticides, instituted proceedings in Federal District Court to challenge, inter alia, the constitutionality of the arbitration provisions on the ground that they violate Article III of the Constitution by allocating to arbitrators the functions of judicial officers and by limiting review by an Article III court. Appellees alleged that EPA had considered their research...