As a result of this ruling, growers were permitted to harvest and process their crop at the end of the 2010 growing season, yet a ban on new plantings was enacted.

Immediately after White's ruling, USDA-APHIS prepared an Environmental Assessment seeking partial deregulation of glyphosate-resistant sugar beet.

The second option was to allow growers to plant glyphosate-resistant sugar beet if they obtained a USDA-APHIS permit and followed specific mandates.

On February 4, 2011, the USDA-APHIS announced glyphosate-resistant sugar beet had been partially deregulated and growers would be allowed to plant seed from spring 2011 until an Environmental Impact Statement is completed.

On February 18, 2008, White approved an agreement between Dynadot and Baer (an injunction based on stipulation);[3][4] this action garnered news coverage around the world.

[5][6] White’s order was widely criticized as both improper (prior restraint is generally prohibited by the First Amendment) and ineffective (Wikileaks' web servers are in Sweden, and numerous mirrors exist).

The Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, commented: "It's not very often a federal judge does a 180-degree turn in a case and dissolves an order.

"[10] In 2012, White ruled in favour of a staff attorney in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit who sued to get health benefits for her spouse under California law.

[12] He also found that "[t]here is strong evidence that Israel’s 'military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide.