In a 7-2 decision today, The Supreme Court reversed the Missouri Court of Appeals decision in Monsanto V. Durnell, answering the question of whether federal preemption prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA.)
It’s the beginning of the end in the U.S. legal saga for Bayer, who acquired Monsanto in 2018. And it begins to wrap up a promise made by CEO Bill Anderson who committed to get the glyphosate litigation “under control” by the end of 2026.
Majority Holding
Monsanto manufactures Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging Roundup usage over 20 years caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. His claim was a failure-to-warn tort claim–Monsanto should have included a cancer warning on the label. A jury awarded Durnell $1.25 million.
SCOTUS held that FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label, which is “in addition to” and “different from” the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA. This opinion was delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, joined by six others: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett.
Key reasoning from SCOTUS:
- The EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning at registration and has repeatedly re-approved it, concluding glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer.
- Federal law requires pesticide manufacturers to use the EPA-approved label unless and until EPA approves or requires a change, with potential civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance.
- State tort duties constitute state labeling requirements, so Durnell’s claim would impose a requirement different from EPA’s determination.
What Does This Mean For Bayer?
Leading up to this decision, Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to plaintiffs in litigation claiming Roundup as the cause of their cancer. The company has budgeted more than $17 billion toward the glyphosate litigation. In total, there have been about 180,000 lawsuits brought forward, with about 60,000 cases open now.
In a statement from Monsanto, the company said: “The U.S. Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims.
Monsanto will continue to pursue final approval of the class settlement and other elements of its multi-pronged strategy to contain the Roundup litigation.
The company is still reviewing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling and will provide a more comprehensive statement shortly.”
Agriculture Industry Applauds Decision
Daren Coppock, ARA President & CEO, said: “This decision protects the entire agricultural supply chain. When ag retailers and applicators comply fully with an EPA-approved label, they should not be punished for following the law. The Court’s ruling ensures that pesticide safety decisions remain grounded in science, exactly as Congress intended when it passed FIFRA,”
CropLife America provided this statement: “We are pleased that today’s decision recognized the congressionally mandated role of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to approve consistent and science-based pesticide labels. This decision provides greater certainty for companies to continue investing in U.S. research, development, and manufacturing operations. This regulatory certainty helps bring innovative crop protection tools to American farmers, strengthens U.S. agricultural global competitiveness, and supports an abundant, healthy, and affordable food supply for families across the country.”
The American Soybean Association gave this statement: “Farmers depend on clear, consistent labeling and a uniform regulatory framework to use pesticides safely and responsibly. The Supreme Court’s decision provides much-needed clarity on the role of federal, science-based regulation and reaffirms the value of sound science in the regulatory process.”
Surprising Dissents and Questions Raised
There has been a split among federal circuit courts in Roundup personal injury litigation, which brought it to the Supreme Court.
Two ideologically different justices dissented together. Justice Jackson filed the dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.
Under FIFRA, a pesticide is “misbranded” if its label contains false or misleading statements or fails to include warnings that are “necessary and adequate to protect health and the environment.”
In the dissent’s view, Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim—which alleges Roundup’s label lacked a necessary cancer warning—is essentially enforcing the same misbranding prohibition that FIFRA itself requires. Since state law and federal law are asking for the same thing (adequate warnings), the state claim doesn’t impose a requirement “in addition to or different from” FIFRA’s requirements, so it shouldn’t be preempted.
Of note, constitutional questions linger. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion agreeing with the outcome but raised constitutional concerns about FIFRA’s validity under the Commerce Clause and non-delegation doctrine. Thomas wrote: “The Act likely exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate ‘Commerce . . . among the several States.’ This power allows Congress to regulate ‘selling, buying, and bartering’ across state lines. It does not allow Congress to regulate ‘agriculture’ or ‘manufacturing,’ activities entirely ‘separate’ from ‘commerce.’”
