...
By Andrew Stanton
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch united against the majority in a ruling that shielded Bayer from lawsuits alleging it failed to warn consumers that the weedkiller Roundup could cause cancer.
The court issued a 7-2 ruling on Thursday, holding that the original Roundup maker, Monsanto, which was acquired by Bayer in 2018, cannot be sued in state courts because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not determined that glyphosate, a key ingredient in the weedkiller, causes cancer. The ruling produced an unusual split among the justices, with Jackson, a liberal, authoring a dissent joined by Gorsuch, a conservative.
The ruling is significant because it could block thousands of other lawsuits alleging that the company failed to warn consumers that Roundup could cause cancer.
Read More on News
What Was Case About?
The case centered on John Durnell, who brought a failure-to-warn tort suit in Missouri against Monsanto for failing to include a cancer warning on Roundup's label. He alleged he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using the product for 20 years.
Bayer, however, argued that it is required to follow federal standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) rather than state-level laws that Durnell and others have sued under.
A jury agreed with Durnell and awarded him more than $1 million on the failure-to-warn theory. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals sided with Durnell. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with the Roundup manufacturer.
About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, which has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market. Bayer has set aside $16 billion to settle cases and proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement earlier this year.
...
What Did Supreme Court Rule?
Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned the majority opinion, siding against Durnell.
“But Durnell’s state tort claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label even though federal law requires Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label without a cancer warning. Because Durnell’s state tort claim would impose a pesticide labeling requirement ‘in addition to or different from’ the label required by EPA, FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s claim,” he wrote.
The court sided with Bayer, ruling that FIFRA preempts state-law labeling requirements that differ from federal labeling requirements imposed under the statute.
Kavanaugh wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first registered glyphosate-based pesticides and approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning, and has repeatedly reevaluated it, concluding it is not likely to cause cancer, including after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.
Durnell's claim would "impose a labeling requirement that is 'in addition to or different from' federal labeling requirements imposed 'under' FIFRA," he wrote. But federal law requires that Roundup be sold with an EPA-approved label, according to Kavanaugh.
What the Supreme Court Decision Means for Future Cases
The ruling narrows the path for future Roundup and pesticide‑labeling lawsuits. By holding that EPA‑approved labels function as binding federal “requirements,” the court made clear that state failure‑to‑warn claims cannot demand warnings EPA has chosen not to require. That means plaintiffs in similar glyphosate cases and in other pesticide litigation will face a much higher bar, because courts must treat EPA’s label determinations as controlling unless the agency itself changes course.
Ricky A. LeBlanc, managing attorney of Sokolove Law, told Newsweek that the decision is “largely limited to the specific language of this pesticide regulation” but “could spill into other areas of litigation.”
The court’s ruling “has taken away one path to justice, but we have others,” he said. “Plaintiffs will shift focus to design defect and negligence claims—jurors have already agreed with those theories in previous cases, including a $600 million Missouri verdict that stood on appeal. Our clients deserve justice, and we will continue pressing forward holding companies accountable for putting profits ahead of people.”
...
What Did Jackson Write in Dissent?
Jackson wrote in her dissent that the court’s majority “misunderstands” FIFRA‘s requirements and “misinterprets” the scope of its preemption. She said the ruling leaves Durnell “without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered.”
“The majority reads into FIFRA a labeling requirement that does not exist, and it reads out of FIFRA the statute’s ongoing prohibition on misbranding. This interpretation cannot be squared with the text of FIFRA or our precedents,” she concluded. “Ultimately, the effect of the majority’s interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell.”
The court "departs from the near unanimous view of the many state and federal courts that have rejected this preemption argument," Jackson wrote.
"Durnell’s failure to-warn claim is not 'in addition to or different from' FIFRA’s mandates; it is equivalent to FIFRA’s key labeling requirement—the misbranding prohibition. And Durnell’s claim does not conflict with any other FIFRA 'requirement' for §136v(b) purposes because the EPA’s registration of a pesticide and approval of its label does not create a labeling requirement under FIFRA," she wrote.
Roundup Settlement Counsel, Bayer Respond to Ruling
Christopher Seeger, who is the proposed class counsel in the $7.25 billion Roundup settlement, criticized the ruling in a statement to Newsweek.
"This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides, and underscores why we negotiated a $7.25 billion settlement that guarantees compensation to Roundup victims regardless of today's decision," he wrote. "We urge those opposing this agreement, including the attorney who unsuccessfully argued Durnell, to drop their opposition so that tens of thousands of cancer victims no longer have to wait for justice after a decade of delay."
Bayer wrote in a statement that the decision 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. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims," the statement reads.
Monsanto Co. vs. Durnell: Read the Court's Full Opinion
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gabe Whisnant and Sam Wilson.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines