The Supreme Court heard arguments April 27 in Monsanto v. Durnell, with justices divided over whether FIFRA preempts 60,000-plus Roundup cancer lawsuits.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument April 27 in *Monsanto v. Durnell*, a case that could determine the fate of more than 60,000 pending state-court lawsuits alleging that Bayer's Roundup herbicide caused cancer and that Monsanto failed to warn users of that risk [1]. The central legal question is whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, preempts state failure-to-warn claims when the Environmental Protection Agency has approved the product's label [2]. A decision one way could extinguish the bulk of the Roundup mass tort docket; a decision the other way could complicate Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion class settlement [1].
The case arrives at the Court as a petition from Monsanto following adverse rulings in lower federal courts that allowed plaintiffs' state-law claims to proceed alongside the EPA's existing label approval [2]. Paul Clement argued for Monsanto, contending that FIFRA's regulatory scheme establishes a uniform national standard that state juries cannot override [1]. Ashley Keller argued for the plaintiffs. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed and argued on behalf of the United States in support of Monsanto, pressing the position that EPA label approval carries preemptive force and that permitting competing state-law requirements would fracture the federal regulatory regime [1][2].
The justices did not signal a unified direction. Justice Kavanaugh appeared receptive to Monsanto's uniformity argument, indicating concern that state jury verdicts effectively mandate labels that differ from what the EPA has authorized [1]. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch pressed counsel on whether a preemption ruling would leave states without recourse if new scientific evidence emerged after EPA approval [1]. Several justices from the Court's liberal wing joined that line of questioning, raising the practical consequence that federal preemption could insulate manufacturers from liability even when safety data evolves [2]. The exchange suggested that a majority, if one forms, may need to resolve how the preemption analysis accounts for regulatory lag.
The significance of the case extends well beyond Roundup. A broad ruling for Monsanto under FIFRA could reset the preemption framework for failure-to-warn claims across all federally regulated products, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and other consumer goods subject to federal labeling regimes [2]. Plaintiffs' counsel and public health advocates warned before argument that such an outcome would foreclose state-court accountability for product risks that federal agencies are slow to recognize [2].
A decision is expected before the Court's term concludes, typically in late June [1]. Bayer has continued to pursue settlement negotiations in parallel, and the outcome here will directly shape the leverage each side holds in those discussions [1].
—