Supreme Court looks to shut down $1.25M labeling suit against Roundup

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court appeared ready to overturn a $1.25 million verdict against the maker of Roundup weedkiller, Monsanto, on Monday, seeming to think a cancer patient’s personal injury lawsuit was barred by federal law.

Over the last decade, there’s been an intense debate over the safety of Roundup’s key ingredient glyphosate. But the high court showed little interest in weighing in on any new research connecting the weedkiller to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, appearing content to let the Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment carry the day.

“The way you account for new science is on a process that changes the requirements going forward, not on a process that retroactively tells you that what you did yesterday as ordered by EPA is somehow illegal,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Donald Trump appointee, said.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, sets rules for selling pesticides. Manufacturers submit safety data and proposed labeling to the EPA, which checks that the pesticide doesn’t create an unreasonable risk of adverse effects on human health.

The EPA administrator also reviews the product’s label for compliance with FIFRA. Misbranding, such as not containing a warning or caution statement necessary to protect health and the environment, is strictly prohibited. This process repeats every 15 years to consider any labeling changes under new information.

Since 1974, the EPA has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate doesn’t warrant a cancer warning. But a Missouri jury held otherwise, finding Monsanto liable for not warning John Durnell of Roundup’s risks.

Durnell was diagnosed with an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2018, at which point he’d been using Roundup for over two decades. In 2019, he filed a failure-to-warn claim against Monsanto in Missouri, and a jury awarded him $1.25 million in damages.

Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to review Durnell’s case, arguing his state-law claims were barred by FIFRA. Because the statute prohibits manufacturers from making label changes without approval, Monsanto claims the EPA’s pesticide-specific labeling determinations are a mandate that manufacturers must adhere to under federal law.

“We go through that entire registration process,” Paul Clement, an attorney with Clement & Murphy representing Monsanto, said. “The way I would understand that is the agency is giving us a green light that we can then go forward and mark it a pesticide or a herbicide as labeled and not have to worry about a misbranding offense.”

Under the court’s precedents, Durnell argued a herbicide could be registered but still misbranded. He said FIFRA made it unlawful to sell pesticides without meeting certain conditions, and Monsanto had to comply with those requirements regardless of its registration approval.

“Monsanto now asks you for the opposite holding, that Roundup cannot be misbranded as a matter of law because EPA found for the first time 50 years ago as a matter of fact that it is safe, based on information Monsanto submitted,” Ashley Keller, an attorney with Keller Postman representing Darnell, said.

Several justices seemed concerned about foreclosing any path to review outside of the EPA. Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, questioned whether the state could review updated research if the agency was slow to do so.

“It’s not necessarily the case that they’re doing something inconsistent with what EPA would do,” Robert said. “It’s simply a fact that they’re responsive to the new information more quickly than the federal government is.”

The Trump administration said states couldn’t require different warning labels, but they could take other actions, like banning the products altogether.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, seemed to see a mismatch in the government’s answer.

“If we say it’s so hazardous we can ban it, why can’t we say it’s so hazardous that there can be tort recoveries for it?” Gorsuch asked.

The federal government said other state claims are still available alongside the EPA labeling regime, including a defective design suit.

In February, President Trump issued an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to protect the manufacturing of glyphosate-based herbicides.

The EPA faces an October 2026 deadline to reexamine glyphosate’s safety. Monsanto says it has no reason to believe the agency will diverge from its consistent findings that glyphosate can be used safely and does not warrant a cancer warning.

Late last year, a landmark study touting Roundup’s safety was retracted by the scientific journal that published it a quarter century ago. The journal said concerns were raised about the validity of its findings after potential conflicts of interest among its authors and misrepresentation of their contributions came to light, thanks to lawsuits against Monsanto.

Monsanto said glyphosate has been extensively studied over the last five decades, stating that thousands of studies have validated its safety. The company said it had no involvement in the vast majority of those published studies.

In February, Monsanto proposed a nationwide class settlement to resolve current and future Roundup claims for non-Hodgkin lymphoma injuries. The company agreed to make annual payments for 21 years totaling up to $7.25 billion.

Monsanto said the proposed class combined with Durnell’s case before the Supreme Court “are independently necessary and mutually reinforcing steps in the company’s multipronged strategy designed to significantly contain the Roundup litigation.”

A favorable ruling from the justices would only apply to those who claim exposure to Roundup after Feb. 12, opt outs from the settlement and certain limited exceptions.

Follow @KelseyReichmann Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social