Case centers on whether federal pesticide law overrides state failure-to-warn lawsuits tied to glyphosate exposure.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Supreme Court of the United States is set to hear arguments in a case that could determine the future of thousands of lawsuits involving glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, and whether federal regulations shield manufacturers from state-level liability.
At the center of the case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, scheduled for oral arguments April 27. The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by Missouri resident John Durnell, who was awarded $1.25 million in state court after developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma following years of using Roundup. Durnell alleges the company failed to warn consumers about potential cancer risks associated with glyphosate, a widely used herbicide ingredient.
According to an Epoch Times report, the central issue before the court is not the safety of glyphosate itself, but whether federal law preempts state law in regulating pesticide labeling and warnings.
Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, argues that the verdict conflicts with federal oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency, which has approved glyphosate for use since 1974 and determined that existing labeling requirements are sufficient and do not require a cancer warning.
The company contends that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act grants authority to the federal government to regulate pesticide labeling and prohibits states from imposing additional or differing requirements. Its legal argument relies on the doctrine of preemption, rooted in the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law overrides conflicting state laws.
Attorneys for Monsanto told the court that the Missouri verdict depended on a finding that the company should have included a warning the EPA has deemed unnecessary. They argue that allowing such claims would undermine uniform federal standards.
If the court rules in favor of Bayer, legal analysts say it could significantly limit the ability of plaintiffs to pursue similar claims in state courts. Personal injury attorney Angel Reyes said such a decision could function as a broad legal shield for companies that comply with federal labeling rules.
Durnell’s legal team argues that the case does not impose new labeling requirements but instead holds the company accountable under state law for failing to warn consumers through other means, such as advertising. They maintain that states retain the right to protect residents from potential health risks tied to pesticide exposure.
Concerns over glyphosate’s safety have persisted despite federal approval. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” citing limited evidence in humans and stronger evidence in animal studies. Several countries and jurisdictions worldwide have since enacted restrictions or bans on glyphosate-based products.
Within the United States, at least 150 local governments have adopted measures limiting its use, according to legal advocacy groups.
The Durnell case reflects broader litigation trends involving Roundup. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits alleging that prolonged exposure to glyphosate contributed to cancer diagnoses. In one high-profile case, groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson was awarded $289 million by a jury after developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, though the amount was later reduced to $20.5 million following appeals.
In another case, Alberta and Alva Pilliod were awarded substantial damages after claiming decades of Roundup exposure led to their diagnoses. Following post-trial proceedings, settlements awarded Alberta more than $56 million and Alva more than $30 million.
Bayer has proposed a nationwide class-action settlement of up to $7.25 billion aimed at resolving current and future claims related to Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The company has stated that the proposed settlement and the Supreme Court review are separate but part of a broader strategy to manage ongoing litigation.
The administration of Donald Trump has supported Monsanto’s position and requested participation in oral arguments. The Department of Justice argued in filings that allowing state-level claims to proceed would disrupt uniform federal standards governing pesticide labeling.
Government attorneys stated that when the EPA registers a chemical, it has the final authority on precautionary warnings and that state-law claims challenging those determinations could undermine regulatory consistency.
They warned that allowing such claims could lead to varying labeling requirements across states, complicating compliance for manufacturers nationwide.
The outcome of the case could affect more than 100,000 pending claims involving glyphosate exposure. It may also influence regulatory and legal standards for other federally approved products.
Separately, Trump has described glyphosate as critical to the U.S. food supply in a February executive order and directed federal agencies to ensure its continued availability. The order also outlined potential legal protections for manufacturers, contingent on congressional action.
A decision from the Supreme Court is expected later this year.