Supreme Court protects pesticides from some health claims in key Roundup case

The Supreme Court on Thursday restricted Americans’ ability to sue pesticide makers over alleged health harms stemming from their products.

In a 7-2 ruling, the court held that some claims that pesticide companies failed to warn users of their products’ health risks are blocked under federal law.

The case stemmed from the claim of cancer patient John Durnell, who sued Monsanto, saying the company did not give an adequate warning of cancer risk related to its Roundup weedkiller. Under Missouri state law, he was awarded $1.25 million.

Monsanto, which is owned by Bayer, challenged the verdict, arguing that Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim was barred by the nation’s pesticide law, noting that the label Roundup is required to bear by the EPA does not include a cancer warning.

The case centered on whether plaintiffs like Durnell can sue pesticide companies such as Monsanto in state court if they do not warn of health effects that go beyond those that are formally recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Currently, the EPA says that key Roundup ingredient glyphosate is “unlikely to be a human carcinogen” and so the company does not have to put a cancer warning on its label.

Meanwhile, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), says that states cannot impose “any requirements for labeling or packaging” for pesticides that are “different from those required” under the law.

The Supreme Court on Thursday determined that this means that cases such as Durnell’s are blocked under federal law.

“Federal law requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the label that EPA approved at the initial registration and that EPA has subsequently re-approved on multiple occasions — that is, the label without a cancer warning,” said the majority opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“Durnell’s state tort claim, by contrast, would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to its labels. That Missouri-law requirement is ‘in addition to’ and ‘different from’ Monsanto’s federal-law labeling obligations,” he wrote.

His opinion was joined by justices across the ideological spectrum: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Jackson authored the dissent, writing the majority opinion “misunderstands FIFRA’s requirements, misinterprets the scope of FIFRA’s preemption, and ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered.”

She wrote that Durnell’s claim does not conflict with the law’s language because “the EPA’s registration of a pesticide and approval of its label does not create a labeling requirement under FIFRA.”

Thomas, who worked for Monsanto early in his career, also filed a concurring opinion that argued that FIFRA itself was “likely unconstitutional in many applications.”

“The Act likely exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate ‘Commerce . . . among the several States.’ …It does not allow Congress to regulate ‘agriculture’ or ‘manufacturing,’” he wrote.

He added that by requiring any label at all “the EPA exercises immense power over private businesses and individuals.”

In addition to Bayer and Monsanto, whose oft-litigated Roundup weedkiller was at the center of the case, Thursday’s ruling was also a win for the pesticide industry generally.

A statement from Monsanto celebrated the ruling, saying it is “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles.”

It’s a loss for plaintiffs who sue such companies and allege that they did not adequately warn of the health harms to which their products may contribute.

It’s also a blow to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement which has united around the idea that these companies should not be shielded from liability.

The issue has become a pain point between MAHA and many of its Republicans allies, including the Trump administration, which backed Monsanto’s Supreme Court bid.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, Monsanto and thousands of people suing it over Roundup’s alleged cancer impacts reached a $7.25 billion settlement agreement covering both current and future exposure claims related to the herbicide.

In its statement, the company said that it will “continue to pursue final approval of the class settlement.”

Updated at 11:34 a.m. EDT.

Supreme Court protects pesticides from some health claims in key Roundup case

Related stories

Nigerians at the core of foreign policy, minister explains

PRP opposes state police, questions Tinubu’s motive

South Africa vows firm response to anti-migrant violence

Federal Judge Strikes Key Parts of Trump Order Restricting Mail Voting