Supreme Court Confirms that a Missouri Jury Cannot Override Federal Pesticide Labels

“Today’s ruling reaffirms that state-court juries cannot punish businesses for merely adhering to regulatory federal law.”
—Cory L. Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation

(Washington, DC)—The U.S. Supreme Court today reversed the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision allowing state-law liability for failing to add a carcinogen warning to an EPA-approved pesticide label. The decision was a victory for Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), which joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the Product Liability Advisory Council on an amicus brief urging reversal.

The case arose from a Missouri jury’s $1.25 million verdict in favor of John L. Durnell, who alleged his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma resulted from exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup containing glyphosate. Durnell claimed Monsanto should have warned that glyphosate is carcinogenic, even though the EPA has repeatedly determined it is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” required labels without such warnings, and explicitly rejected adding a cancer warning as false and misleading. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the verdict, rejecting Monsanto’s preemption defenses under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

In an amicus brief supporting Monsanto, WLF argued that state tort law cannot flout express preemption provisions in federal law by undermining the congressionally mandated, science-based regulation of herbicide labeling. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court agreed, reasoning that EPA’s repeated approval of Roundup’s label without a cancer warning established federal labeling requirements under FIFRA. Durnell’s claim, the Court explained, would impose a state-law duty to add a cancer warning that is “in addition to or different from” those federal requirements.