The Supreme Court just made it harder for Americans harmed by pesticides to hold chemical companies accountable. Action Alert!
Listen to the audio version of this article:
THE TOPLINE
- In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that when the EPA has approved a pesticide label, many state-law failure-to-warn lawsuits are preempted, making it harder for people who allege harm from products like Roundup to hold manufacturers accountable.
- Because EPA labeling decisions can now shield companies from certain lawsuits, the agency’s scientific assessments and willingness to require warnings become even more critical. This increases the need for stronger regulatory oversight and greater transparency.
- While the ruling narrows one legal avenue, it does not eliminate all claims against pesticide manufacturers or states’ authority to regulate pesticide use. Future efforts should focus on holding EPA accountable, preserving state protections, and opposing congressional efforts to expand liability protections for pesticide companies.
When government regulators fail, the courtroom has often been the last place ordinary Americans could seek justice. The Supreme Court has now slammed that courthouse door shut for many people harmed by pesticides.
In a 7-2 ruling inMonsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Court sided with Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, and held that federal pesticide law blocks certain state failure-to-warn lawsuits when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved a pesticide label without the warning at issue. The decision is narrower than the full immunity Big Chem has been seeking in Congress and state legislatures, but it is still a major blow to consumers, farmers, groundskeepers, landscapers, and others exposed to pesticides.
The core message is this: if EPA has not required a warning, injured people may not be able to use state law to argue that the company should have warned them anyway.
Speaking to the ruling, ANH General Counsel Jonathan Emord said, “The Supreme Court correctly determined that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, preempts any state cancer warning label requirement on Roundup—and here a Missouri court had previously mandated one—because the EPA had in our view wrongly determined evidence insufficient to justify a warning that glyphosate may cause cancer. The decision reveals the need to amend FIFRA to remove the federal pre-emption provision.”
He continued: “Across the country, for years, evidence has emerged linking glyphosate with cancer. While virtually no proof in science is conclusive, enough exists here to alert the public of the potential risk of cancer arising from the use of this chemical in concentrations sufficient to function as an herbicide. Denying the states or state courts the power to insist on warnings of this kind simply denies consumers full information, depriving them of the chance to weigh for themselves the potential risks.”
What the Court Decided
The case centered on the failure-to-warn case brought by St. Louis gardener John Durnell, who alleged that decades of Roundup use caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A Missouri jury previously awarded him $1.25 million on his failure-to-warn claim, finding that Monsanto should have warned users about known cancer risks.
However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, said the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims that would require a pesticide label different from the one approved by EPA. Because EPA has not required a cancer warning on Roundup’s glyphosate label, the Court said Missouri tort law cannot require Monsanto to add one.
Why This Matters for Consumers
This ruling does not say glyphosate is safe. Nor does it say Roundup cannot cause harm. It also does not decide the science.
What it does instead is shift power away from juries and injured people and toward EPA’s labeling decisions.
That matters because EPA’s pesticide oversight has a deeply troubled record (see here, here, here, here, and here.) We’ve reported previously on court documents showing that a top EPA official, Jess Rowland, promised Monsanto he would quash an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services Department to conduct its own review of glyphosate. He was successful—the HHS review never happened. A letter from a former EPA employee dying of cancer accused Rowland of having intimidated staff, compelling them to change reports to make them favorable to Monsanto.
Remember, too, that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, based on limited evidence in humans, sufficient evidence in animals, and strong evidence of genotoxicity.
This is the agency we now have to rely on to get pesticide labels right. If EPA is slow, captured, politically pressured, or wrong—imagine that!—ordinary people will have fewer tools to force accountability after they are harmed.
How The Ruling Changes the Accountability Landscape
First, failure-to-warn-based Roundup claims are likely in serious trouble. Bayer has already said the ruling should lead to dismissal of current warning-based claims and block future failure-to-warn claims.
Second, pesticide companies now have a stronger argument in other cases involving EPA-approved labels. The ruling will likely be cited beyond glyphosate, including in litigation involving other pesticide products where plaintiffs argue that companies failed to warn about health risks.
Third, the decision increases the stakes of EPA action. If EPA label decisions can preempt state failure-to-warn claims, then EPA’s failures become more consequential. The agency’s refusal to require a warning will affect whether injured people have a remedy.
Finally, the ruling may reduce incentives for companies to disclose risks quickly. Tort lawsuits have historically served as a backstop when regulators lag behind the science. Weakening that backstop means more pressure must fall on EPA, Congress, states, and public watchdogs.
Are There Any Silver Linings?
Yes, but they are limited.
The ruling doesn’t provide total immunity to pesticide manufacturers. It focuses on failure-to-warn claims that would require a label warning different from EPA’s approved label. Other theories, such as design defect, negligence, fraud, warranty, or claims based on conduct outside labeling, may still be available depending on the facts and state law.
States also retain important authority over pesticide sale and use. The decision does not appear to erase state power to restrict, condition, or ban pesticide uses within their borders. That matters. State and local action may now become even more important.
The Court also emphasized that citizens and stakeholders can petition EPA to modify, suspend, or cancel a pesticide registration and can seek judicial review of EPA’s response. Health advocates must force the agency to confront independent science, disclose its reasoning, and act when risks emerge.
EPA approval should not be treated as a guarantee of safety. Regulatory approval often rests heavily on industry-submitted data. When the agency gets it wrong, the costs are borne by families, farmworkers, applicators, landscapers, and communities living with chemical exposure.
ANH has warned that Big Chem’s liability push resembles vaccine-style immunity, but without even the pretense of a compensation system for those harmed. This ruling moves pesticide law in that direction. It does not finish the job, but it advances the strategy.
Moving Forward
ANH will be watching Congress, where pesticide riders could go much further than the Court did by stripping states and injured consumers of additional protections. Just because we managed to beat back the pesticide immunity provisions that were going to be included in the Farm Bill doesn’t mean Big Chem won’t try again.
Most importantly, this ruling means EPA must be held to a far higher standard. If the agency’s label decisions can shut courthouse doors, then EPA cannot be allowed to rubber-stamp industry science, ignore independent evidence, or hide behind bureaucratic delay.
Consumers deserve clean food, transparency, and the right to protect themselves from toxic exposures. The Supreme Court has narrowed one path to justice. Now the fight must move harder toward EPA accountability and stopping Congress from turning this narrow ruling into full-blown immunity for Big Chem.
People Power vs. Big Chem – What We Can Do Together
The Supreme Court has narrowed one path to justice. Now we must force open another.
Please share this article, and send our Action Alert to your representatives, and join ANH in demanding three things: 1) that Congress reject any pesticide immunity provisions; 2) that EPA be held to a far higher standard on glyphosate and other toxic chemicals; and 3) that FIFRA be amended to remove the federal pre-emption provision that prevents states and state courts from requiring stronger warnings when credible evidence of harm exists.
If EPA’s label decisions can shut courthouse doors, EPA must be made answerable to the public—not to Big Chem. And Congress must restore the ability of states, courts, and injured people to demand the warnings consumers need to protect themselves.
Action Alert!
