gloss · the reading room

Monsanto v. Durnell

609 U. S. ___ (2026) · 6/25/26

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U. S. C. §136v(b), expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to its Roundup products’ label.

Edition: slip opinion
Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1068_n7ip.pdf
Voices: Syllabus — prepared by the Reporter of Decisions · Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. · Justice Thomas, concurring. · Justice Jackson, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, dissenting.
Monsanto Company manufactures and distributes Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide designed to control weeds. The EPA has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate and repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer. EPA’s assessment is shared by many other regulatory bodies around the world. In accordance with EPA’s view that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans, EPA has not required labels on glyphosate-based pesticides like Roundup to include a cancer warning. In 2019, John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that he had used Monsanto’s Roundup…
Held: 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. Pp. 9–22. (a) FIFRA’s preemption clause, entitled “Uniformity,” provides that a “State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.” 7 U. S. C. §136v(b). FIFRA therefore preempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA. Pp. 9–14. (1) To register a pesticide, EPA must…
Read it in the reading room ›