The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has approved and re-approved a pesticide label without a cancer warning. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion; Justices Jackson and Gorsuch dissented. The decision is expected to affect thousands of Roundup-related lawsuits, while Bayer proceeds with a separate $7.25 billion class-action settlement.
The 7-2 ruling shields Bayer from thousands of Roundup lawsuits by holding that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims after EPA label approval.
“Corporate agribusiness gains insulation from accountability while farmworkers and rural communities lose redress options.”
Conservative
The decision correctly applies federal preemption so that EPA-approved labels cannot be overridden by state tort litigation.
“Nationwide regulatory standards from the EPA protect agricultural production and innovation from inconsistent state rules.”
Libertarian
FIFRA preemption reduces conflicting state compliance burdens yet entrenches federal administrative power over common-law remedies.
“Uniform national rules aid producers but trade away decentralized individual recourse once an agency approves a label.”
Devil's Advocate
All three perspectives accept the preemption framing without examining the underlying glyphosate science or the survival of non-failure-to-warn claims.
“The analyses overlook whether EPA label approval reflects contested data and skip the case-specific exposure record.”