Supreme Court Backs Monsanto in Roundup Warning Case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with Monsanto, ruling 7-2 that federal pesticide law bars state lawsuits accusing the company of failing to warn consumers that its Roundup weedkiller could cause cancer.

The decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell is expected to block thousands of pending suits over the herbicide and hands a victory to Monsanto's owner, Bayer, after nearly a decade of costly litigation.

What the court decided

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, expressly preempts a state failure-to-warn claim because such a claim would force Monsanto, as SCOTUSblog reported, "to add a cancer warning to Roundup's label" that the Environmental Protection Agency has not approved.

"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, according to NPR.

Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas, CBS News reported. Thomas also filed a brief concurrence questioning what he called "underlying constitutional infirmities" in FIFRA.

The EPA first registered glyphosate-based pesticides in 1974 and has repeatedly concluded the chemical is not likely to cause cancer, so it has not required a cancer warning on Roundup labels. FIFRA, enacted in 1947, bars states from imposing labeling requirements "in addition to or different from" the federal ones.

How the case arose

The suit was filed in 2019 by John Durnell, a Missouri gardener who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup for more than 20 years, including as his neighborhood association's "spray guy" on St. Louis parks. A jury rejected most of his claims but found Monsanto failed to warn him of the alleged cancer risk and awarded him $1.25 million in damages in 2023.

Durnell is one of more than 100,000 people who have sued Monsanto over Roundup. The Missouri Court of Appeals rejected Monsanto's argument that FIFRA preempted the claim, and the state's supreme court declined to review the decision before the case reached Washington.

The litigation traces to 2015, when a working group of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans," prompting tens of thousands of lawsuits. The EPA later conducted its own reviews and found the "strongest support" for classifying glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic."

The dissent

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented, arguing the majority's ruling rests on "a labeling requirement that does not exist" and describing its effects as "both remarkable and regrettable."

"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," Jackson wrote.

She argued FIFRA limits but does not eliminate states' authority over pesticide labels, and that EPA approval "cannot conclusively establish that the pesticide is not misbranded."

What it means

Bayer, which acquired Roundup when it bought Monsanto in 2018, welcomed the ruling. The decision "is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation," the company said, adding it "should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles."

Bayer said it still plans to seek approval of a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement, now before a Missouri state court, that would resolve current and future claims. A federal judge earlier this year ruled the proposed deal would be heard in state court, as detailed in coverage of how a judge sent Bayer's $7.25 billion Roundup deal to state court. The company has previously set aside $16 billion to settle Roundup cases.

Christopher Seeger, an attorney proposed as a claimants' representative in the settlement, criticized the outcome. "This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides," he said, though he noted a settlement could still let some people receive compensation.

Durnell's attorney, Ashley Keller, has said the ruling could still allow other suits alleging problems with how the product was designed, rather than how it was labeled. Such claims fall outside the failure-to-warn theory at the heart of a product liability lawsuit.

The decision is a victory for the Trump administration, which backed Monsanto, though it could prove politically delicate given that allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement want to curb pesticide use. The ruling reinforces a federal-preemption line of reasoning that has surfaced in other recent cases, including when the court voided a Biden-era appliance efficiency rule.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Supreme Court rule in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell?

By a 7-2 vote, the court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state failure-to-warn lawsuits over Roundup's cancer warnings, because such claims would require a label the EPA has not approved.

Who wrote the majority and the dissent?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Thomas. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Does the ruling end all Roundup litigation?

No. It is expected to block thousands of failure-to-warn suits, but Durnell's lawyer has said claims over the product's design may still proceed. Bayer also plans to pursue a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement.

Who is John Durnell?

Durnell is a Missouri gardener who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup for more than 20 years. A jury awarded him $1.25 million in 2023, a verdict at the center of the case the Supreme Court decided.

Sources

Reporting compiled from court records and the cited source outlets.