On June 25, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided Monsanto Co. v. Durnell[i], holding states cannot require a company to change or add to its nationwide label when that labeling has been accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) for safety-based claims.[ii]

John Durnell sued Monsanto, alleging its product led to his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after he used it for nearly two decades.[iii] Durnell claimed the product should have had a “cancer warning on Roundup’s label.”[iv] In state court, Durnell won over $1 million on his claim.[v] The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Monsanto’s argument that FIFRA “expressly preempted” the failure-to-warn claim.[vi] The EPA requires registration of pesticides under FIFRA.[vii] The product in question is “a glyphosate-based pesticide manufactured by Monsanto” and regulated by the EPA.[viii] The EPA has concluded “glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer”; thus, “the EPA has not required a cancer warning on…[the product’s]…label.”[ix]

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled FIFRA “expressly preempts any state tort claim that would require a pesticide manufacturer to use a label ‘in addition to’ or ‘different from’ federal requirements imposed under FIFRA.”[x] This preemption dictates state-law labeling requirements cannot be different from the federal-labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA.[xi] If a failure to warn claim required a cancer warning on the product label, one which imposed a labeling requirement different from or an addition to the federal labeling requirements, the state law would be preempted by the federal labeling requirement under FIFRA based on safety claims, not efficacy.[xii]

The EPA approved the product’s initial registration and re-approved it time and time again without a cancer warning. Durnell’s state tort claims would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to its labels under state labeling requirements which would be “in addition to” the federal labeling obligations.[xiii] The Court ruled Monsanto did not have to add state labeling requirements to its label; only the federal labeling requirements are necessary.[xiv]

Takeaways

Federal agencies control the labeling of substances they regulate. This ruling establishes there is a broad federal preemption shield for pesticide manufacturers facing state tort litigation over their EPA-approved labels.[xv] This framework likely applies to other federal statutes across industries with federal labeling requirements, including medical devices under the Medical Device Amendments, which are governed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as the preemption clause is “nearly identical”.[xvi] Federal statutes across several industries use preemption language similar to that in as FIFRA.[xvii] The Court’s ruling reaffirms the Congressional intent that a product should be sold with uniform labeling across the country.[xviii]

Keep Reading

Putting The Pieces Together: Why Doing Puzzles Makes Me a Better Attorney NYC: The City That Never Stops Hosting Punitive Liability Through the Rear Window: Lessons Learned from a Class Action Filing How to Handle FTB-Suspended Entities Products Liability Alert: “Non-Habit Forming” Claims Put Sleep-Aid Marketing Under Scrutiny Give a Number: Why Silence May Be the Defense’s Most Expensive Mistake Being a Good Human is Common Sense Fundamentals of Litigation: What NOT to Tell Your Expert Anatomy of a $12 Million Verdict – Part Three: How The Apex℠ Could Have Changed the Trajectory of a Warren County, New Jersey Trucking Case

Sources

[i] Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), 146 S.Ct. 2001 (2026).

[ii] Id. at p. 1-2.

[iii] Id. at p. 2.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Id. at p. 8.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Id. at p. 10.

[viii] Id. at p. 1.

[ix] Id. at p. 6.

[x] Id. at p. 1-2.

[xi] Id. at p. 2.

[xii] Id. at p. 12.

[xiii] Id. at p. 11.

[xiv] Id. at p. 2.

[xv] Id. at p. 1.

[xvi] Id. at p. 12-13.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Id. at p. 13-14.