Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

── Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network v. United States Environmental Protection Agency ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK No. 25-3955 NORTH AMERICA; ALIANZA NACIONAL DE CAMPESINAS; CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL MEMORANDUM* ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION; FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA; FARMWORKER JUSTICE; GREENLATINOS; LABOR COUNCIL FOR LATIN AMERICAN ADVANCEMENT; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.; PINEROS Y CAMPESINOS UNIDOS DEL NOROESTE; UFW FOUNDATION PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA; ALIANZA NACIONAL DE CAMPESINAS; CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION; FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA; FARMWORKER JUSTICE; GREENLATINOS; LABOR COUNCIL FOR LATIN AMERICAN ADVANCEMENT; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.; PINEROS Y CAMPESINOS UNIDOS DEL NOROESTE; UFW FOUNDATION, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Petitioners. v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. Petition for Writ of Mandamus Argued and Submitted December 2, 2025 San Francisco, California Before: R. NELSON, COLLINS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus compelling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take final agency action on a November 18, 2021 administrative petition (the Administrative Petition). Petitioners ask the EPA to take several actions under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136 et seq. We have jurisdiction over relevant final agency actions under FFDCA under 21 U.S.C. § 346a(h)(1), and over relevant final agency actions under FIFRA under 7 U.S.C § 136n(b). The All Writs Act “authorizes us to issue mandamus relief necessary to protect our prospective jurisdiction.” In re Cal. Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d 1110, 1119 (9th Cir. 2001) (cleaned up); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1651. We find that mandamus relief is premature now and deny the petition without prejudice. 1. It is uncontested that Petitioners have Article III standing “to bring suit on 2 25-3955 behalf of [their] members” because their members “have standing to sue in their own right,” and “the interests at stake are germane to the organization[s’] purpose[s].” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180– 81 (2000). A threat of exposure to potentially unsafe pesticides is a “credible threat” sufficient to establish the injury in fact requirement for standing. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. E.P.A., 735 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, Petitioners claim that their members include farm workers exposed to unsafe pesticides and other people who live close to farmland and face similar exposure through spray drift and water runoff. EPA submits a declaration explaining that it divided the pesticides at issue into three categories. For the first category, it plans to respond to the Petition in 2026. For the second category, EPA plans to respond to the FFDCA portion in 2026 and to the FIFRA portion “in conjunction with ongoing registration review.” For the final category, EPA plans to respond “in conjunction with ongoing registration review.” Petitioners submit declarations showing that their members risk exposure to pesticides included in each of these three categories. At this stage, this is sufficient to consider whether to compel agency action