Million Dollar Roundup Verdict Reversed by SCOTUS

FIFRA Preempts the State-Law Failure-to-Warn Claim

Post number 5381
Posted on June 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, Certiorari To The Court Of Appeals Of Missouri, Eastern District, No. 24–1068, argued April 27, 2026, decided June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court reversed a $1 million judgment found by a Missouri state court.

Facts

John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that his long-term use of Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto should have warned users of cancer risks. A jury awarded Durnell more than $1 million on a failure-to-warn theory, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether FIFRA preempts the state-law failure-to-warn claim.

Monsanto manufactures and distributes Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate and has concluded that it is not likely to cause cancer; accordingly, EPA has not required a cancer warning on Roundup’s label.

Law

The case turned on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, particularly its express preemption clause, 7 U.S.C. §136v(b). That provision bars States from imposing labeling or packaging requirements that are “in addition to or different from” those required under FIFRA. The Court also relied on FIFRA’s registration and labeling provisions, EPA regulations governing approved labels and label changes.

Discussion

The majority reasoned that EPA’s approval of Roundup’s label without a cancer warning created a federal labeling requirement under FIFRA. Because Monsanto was required to use the EPA-approved label unless EPA approved or required a change, a state-law duty requiring a cancer warning would impose a requirement different from or in addition to federal requirements. SCOTUS concluded that state tort duties can qualify as labeling requirements and that Durnell’s claim would directly alter what Roundup’s label must say.

Durnell argued that his Missouri failure-to-warn claim merely paralleled FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition, which requires adequate warnings and prohibits false or misleading labels. The majority rejected that view as too general, emphasizing EPA’s central role in determining pesticide labels and the statutory goal of uniform labeling.

Analysis

The decision gives strong preemptive effect to EPA label approval under FIFRA. It treats the agency-approved label as more than evidence of compliance; for preemption purposes, it functions as a federal requirement that limits inconsistent state tort duties. This approach favors national uniformity in pesticide labeling and protects manufacturers from state-law liability based on warnings EPA has not required.

At the same time, the dissent warned that the ruling narrows the traditional role of state tort suits as a parallel enforcement mechanism and may reduce incentives for manufacturers to seek label changes when new risk information emerges.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Missouri Court of Appeals and held that FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim. Because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label despite EPA’s approval of a label without such a warning, the state-law duty was deemed “in addition to” and “different from” federal labeling requirements under FIFRA.

Justice Thomas concurred to raise broader constitutional concerns about Congress’s commerce power, delegation to agencies, and administrative preemption.

Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented, arguing unsuccessfully that EPA registration is not itself a binding labeling requirement and that state claims equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding prohibition should not be preempted.

ZALMA OPINION

Lawsuits alleging Roundup caused cancer to people using the product without a warning of its cancer causing effect resulting in multi-million dollar judgments working to exhaust Monsanto’s available insurance coverage and making plaintiffs and their lawyers rich and challenging the value of the investment of the manufacturer’s shareholders.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.