What happened
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a Missouri appellate decision that had upheld a more than $1 million failure-to-warn verdict against Monsanto, holding that federal pesticide law blocks John Durnell's claim that Roundup should have carried a cancer warning.
Writing for the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act expressly preempts the state-law claim because it would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to an EPA-approved Roundup label that did not include one. FIFRA's preemption clause, the court said, bars state pesticide-labeling requirements that are "in addition to or different from" federal labeling requirements.
The ruling gives Monsanto a high-court win on a recurring preemption defense in Roundup litigation and narrows the path for state failure-to-warn claims that would demand warnings beyond those EPA has approved for glyphosate-based pesticides. The court reversed the Missouri Court of Appeals and remanded the case.
Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court in 2019, alleging that he used Roundup products for about 20 years and developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as a result. A jury sided with him on a failure-to-warn theory and awarded more than $1 million, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed after rejecting Monsanto's argument that FIFRA expressly preempted the claim.
The majority emphasized EPA's role in reviewing pesticide labels and deciding what warnings are necessary to protect health and the environment. It said EPA has repeatedly concluded glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer and has not required a cancer warning on Roundup's label, while federal regulations require Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label unless EPA approves or requires a different one.
Justice Kavanaugh's opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Thomas also filed a concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, arguing that the majority read into FIFRA a labeling requirement that does not exist, read out the statute's continuing misbranding prohibition and unjustifiably closed the courthouse doors to plaintiffs like Durnell.