April 27, 2026
Supreme Court weighs whether EPA approval blocks state pesticide lawsuits
Supreme Court hears Roundup preemption case that could shield Monsanto from 100,000 cancer lawsuits
📜Constitutional Law👨⚖️Judicial Review📋Public Policy
Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 27, 2026 in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, No. 24-1068. John L. Durnell, a Missouri resident who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup without protective equipment for years, won a $1.25 million jury verdict in Missouri. Monsanto argues the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state failure-to-warn claims. ()
FIFRA Section 136v(b) contains a uniformity clause: it preempts state requirements for pesticide labeling that are 'in addition to or different from those required' under federal law. EPA registered glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) and approved product labels without cancer warnings. Monsanto argues this EPA approval preempts state juries from imposing cancer warning requirements.
Paul D. Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General under President George W. Bush and one of the most prominent Supreme Court advocates, argued for Monsanto. Clement argued that allowing state tort liability to impose label requirements EPA didn't mandate creates a 'patchwork' of inconsistent requirements across states.
John Durnell's attorneys argued FIFRA doesn't delegate authority to EPA to prohibit states from requiring warnings the agency didn't mandate. The distinction matters: EPA approved a label without a cancer warning, but it never explicitly ruled that cancer warnings are prohibited. Silence, Durnell argues, is not preemption.
The case creates a circuit split. The Third Circuit (in Schaffner v. Monsanto) held FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims. The Missouri Court of Appeals held FIFRA does not preempt Durnell's claim. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
IARC, the World Health Organization's cancer agency, classified glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic' in 2015. EPA has maintained glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic at typical exposure levels. The conflict between IARC and EPA classifications is central to why warning labels remain contested.
More than 100,000 Roundup cancer lawsuits are pending in state and federal courts. Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, has paid over $11 billion in Roundup settlements. A ruling that FIFRA preempts state claims would eliminate most remaining litigation.
The Supreme Court's 2022 Loper-Lund decision eliminated Chevron deference, limiting courts' deference to agency interpretations. This could help Durnell: if courts no longer defer to EPA's interpretation of its own labeling decisions, the argument that EPA silence constitutes preemption weakens.
📜Constitutional Law👨⚖️Judicial Review📋Public Policy
People, bills, and sources
John L. Durnell
Missouri Farmer and Plaintiff
Paul D. Clement
Former U.S. Solicitor General
D. John Sauer
Current U.S. Solicitor General
Hugo Malan
Bayer AG CEO
What you can do
1
research
Track the Monsanto v. Durnell case on SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog provides expert analysis of Supreme Court cases including docket updates, opinion tracking, and substantive commentary. This case will determine whether pesticide manufacturers face state tort liability for warning omissions that federal agencies didn't require.
2
research
Review EPA's glyphosate risk assessment on EPA website
EPA maintains detailed technical assessments of glyphosate's cancer risk. Understanding the EPA's scientific reasoning helps evaluate whether state courts should be allowed to impose warning requirements based on different risk assessments.
3
civic action
Contact your state attorney general about FIFRA preemption impact on state courts
State attorneys general enforce consumer protection laws and manage state court litigation. They have direct interest in whether FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims. Citizen input can influence state litigation strategy and amicus positions.
Hello, I am [NAME], a constituent from [CITY/STATE]. I am calling about Supreme Court case Monsanto v. Durnell and preemption of state failure-to-warn liability.
Key concerns:
- SCOTUS heard arguments April 27, 2026 on whether FIFRA preempts state pesticide warning claims
- John Durnell won $1.25 million jury verdict for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from Roundup use
- 100,000+ Roundup cancer lawsuits pending in state and federal courts
- Monsanto argues EPA silence on cancer warnings preempts state juries from imposing warnings
- Durnell argues EPA approval doesn't prohibit state-imposed warnings
Specific request: I am asking [STATE AG] to file or support an amicus brief in Monsanto v. Durnell defending state court authority to impose warning requirements based on state tort law.
Question: How is [STATE] positioned if SCOTUS rules that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims?
Thank you for your time.