06/27/2026
In a 7-2 decision in Monsanto v. Durnell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal pesticide law overrides state law claims alleging that Monsanto failed to put a cancer warning on Roundup's label.
Because the U.S. EPA approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning, the Court held that states cannot effectively require a different label through lawsuits. The Court did not rule that Roundup is safe and did not rule that glyphosate cannot cause cancer, but the case has effectively weakened or blocked thousands of remaining lawsuits based on the argument that Roundup should have carried a cancer warning.
The case is one we've covered extensivley in the past. It involved a Missouri man, John Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of using Roundup and won a $1.25 million jury verdict. The Supreme Court overturned that verdict, concluding that federal law preempts state "failure to warn" claims that would require a cancer warning not mandated by the EPA.
The decision was ultimately about who has authority over pesticide labeling. The majority said federal law requires uniform national labels, while the dissent argued that state lawsuits should remain available as a way to hold companies accountable when people believe warnings are inadequate.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has faced more than 100,000 Roundup related claims and has already spent billions resolving litigation.
The decision ultimately gives pesticide manufacturers a powerful shield from liability and leaves injured people with fewer options.
