US Supreme Court Rules for Monsanto in Case Over Pesticides and Cancer Warnings

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the former Monsanto company in a closely watched case that limits people’s ability to sue pesticide companies for alleged illnesses or injuries.

The decision was made in a 7-2 split, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh offering the majority opinion and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing the dissenting opinion.

The case, Monsanto v Durnell, specifically dealt with the question of whether a federal law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory authority over pesticides preempts state claims that a company failed to warn users of certain product risks when the EPA itself has not required such warnings.

In its ruling, the court said that the EPA regulates Roundup, one of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides, and the agency has “repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer, [and] … has not required a cancer warning on Roundup’s label.” Regulations require manufacturers to use EPA-approved pesticide labels, the SCOTUS opinion argues, and, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), states cannot impose labeling requirements different from the EPA.

“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,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.