Supreme Court backs Monsanto in Roundup labeling case

The Supreme Court on Thursday shielded Monsanto from state-law liability over cancer warnings on Roundup, ruling that federal pesticide law bars a Missouri man’s claim that the company should have added a cancer warning to the weedkiller’s label.

The 7-2 decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell is a victory for Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, as the company faces thousands of lawsuits from people who say Roundup’s key ingredient caused their cancers. The case centered on who controls pesticide labeling: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under federal law, or state courts hearing failure-to-warn claims.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, expressly preempts the state-law claim brought by Missouri resident James Durnell. The law regulates the sale and labeling of pesticide products.

“Because Durnell’s state tort claim would impose a pesticide labeling requirement ‘in addition to or different from’ the label required by EPA, FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s claim,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Jackson wrote that the majority misunderstood the federal law and said a cancer warning would not conflict with FIFRA.

“In accepting Monsanto’s argument and holding that Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim is preempted, the Court misunderstands FIFRA’s requirements, misinterprets the scope of FIFRA’s preemption, and ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered,” she wrote.

Monsanto argued that federal law gives the EPA, not individual states or juries, authority over what appears on pesticide labels. The company’s lawyer, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, told the justices during April arguments that the law requires one uniform national standard.

“You shouldn’t let a single Missouri jury second-guess that judgment,” Clement said.

The current U.S. solicitor general, John Sauer, also sided with Monsanto, as did the court’s majority.

Durnell’s lawyer, Ashley Keller, argued that state juries should still be able to consider claims that Monsanto failed to warn consumers about glyphosate, the central chemical in Roundup. Keller told the court that Congress has been debating a “golden shield” for the company as part of the farm bill, but said that until Congress acts, state juries could and should evaluate such cases.

NPR reported that experts said a ruling for the company could significantly narrow Monsanto’s liability in tens of thousands of cases moving slowly through the courts.

The dispute has drawn public attention beyond the courtroom. NPR reported that scores of protesters appeared outside the Supreme Court in late April to support people who say they were harmed by Roundup and other chemicals, aligning themselves with the Make America Healthy Again movement. President Trump has signed an executive order to boost domestic production of glyphosate, NPR reported, a move that has contributed to a rupture between the White House and some MAHA supporters.