Monsanto Company v. Durnell

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 16 Jan 2026

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA'') creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing the use, sale, and labeling of pesticides. The Act preempts any state "requirement[] for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under" FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. §136v(b). For decades, EPA has exercised its authority under FIFRA to find that Monsanto's Roundup product line and its active ingredient, glyphosate, do not cause cancer in humans. Consistent with that understanding, EPA has repeatedly approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning. FIFRA prohibits Monsanto from making any substantive change to an EPA-approved label unless it first obtains EPA's permission. Respondent is one of more than 100,000 plaintiffs across the country that nonetheless seek to hold Monsanto liable for not warning users that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer. The federal courts of appeals and state appellate courts are divided over whether FIFRA preempts such claims. The Third Circuit has held that it does. In the decision below, the Missouri Court of Appeals joined the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and state appellate courts in California and Oregon in holding that it does not. The question presented is: Whether FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to- warn claim where EPA has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

Justice Kavanaugh wrote that FIFRA expressly preempts John Durnell’s Missouri failure-to-warn claim against Monsanto over Roundup. The Court said federal law requires Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label, and EPA had repeatedly approved Roundup without a cancer warning because it had repeatedly concluded glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer. Because Durnell’s state tort claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning, it would impose a labeling requirement in addition to or different from FIFRA’s federal requirements. The Court relied on FIFRA’s text, EPA’s registration and labeling scheme, and prior precedent recognizing that state tort duties can count as labeling requirements.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented. She argued that Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim is not different from FIFRA’s own misbranding prohibition and that EPA’s registration and label approval do not create a labeling requirement for purposes of FIFRA’s preemption clause. In her view, the Court wrongly treated EPA’s approval of Roundup’s label as a federal requirement that displaces state law, misunderstood FIFRA’s text and scope, and left Durnell without a remedy for his injuries.