Overview
- The Supreme Court, which decided the case on Thursday, June 25, 2026, held in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell that FIFRA expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims that would require warnings the EPA did not mandate.
- The ruling vacated a $1.25 million Missouri jury verdict for John L. Durnell and resolves a circuit split by treating state tort duties that would change federally approved labels as barred 'requirements' under FIFRA.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the 7–2 majority opinion while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented; the dissent argued the claim paralleled FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition and should survive.
- The decision is legal, not scientific: the Court did not rule on whether glyphosate causes cancer and noted the EPA repeatedly approved Roundup labels without a cancer warning under its regulatory framework.
- Practical effects include likely dismissal of many pending state failure-to-warn suits, potential growth in non-label claims such as design or fraud theories, and calls from some lawmakers for legislative fixes to restore state remedies.