Supreme Court Justices Weigh Monsanto’s Bid to Block Glyphosate Warning Lawsuits
Yves here. The New Lede provides a good summary of the Monsanto/glyphosate case now before the Supreme Court, covering not only the positions filed in court but also the arguments made before the bench and the issues raised by the judges. The article points out that Monsanto’s win could cut down on state laws that require companies to comply with certain consumer disclosure standards by preventing lawsuits for violations when warnings comply with Federal requirements.
Remember that a cautionary tale is not trivial. Another negative finding was that despite not telling consumer users or farmers to take strict measures when using glyphosate, called Roundup, their workers applying glyphosate in the test fields were close to hazmat-suited up.
Carey Gillam is the editor-in-chief of The New Lady and was a Reuters international correspondent (1998-2015). He is the author of “Whitewash – A Story of Herbicides, Cancer and Scientific Corruption,” an exposé of Monsanto’s corporate corruption in agriculture. The book won the Rachel Carson Book Award from the Society of Environmental Journalists in 2018. His second book, a legal thriller titled The Monsanto Papers, was released on March 2, 2021. It was first published in The New Lede.
Members of the US Supreme Court responded to Monsanto Co.’s lawyers. in a flurry of questions about pesticide regulation on Monday, arguing whether federal law mandates state actions that allow consumers to sue companies for failing to warn of product hazards such as cancer.
The case, Monsanto v. Durnell, focused on glyphosate – the herbicide used by the popular Roundup brand and many other herbicide products sold by the former Monsanto company, now owned by Germany’s Bayer. The chemical has been scientifically linked to cancer in many studies, and was classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization in 2015.
Bayer has spent the past decade fighting more than 100,000 lawsuits by people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma that they blame on exposure to Monsanto’s glyphosate weed killer. The company has paid out billions of dollars in jury awards and settlements.
In Durnell’s case, and many others that have gone to trial, the jury found that Monsanto failed to warn the plaintiff that glyphosate could cause cancer.
Although it maintains that its products do not cause cancer, Monsanto is asking the Supreme Court to rule that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), it cannot be held liable for failing to warn of the risk of cancer if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not find such a risk existed and did not require such a warning. The EPA’s position is that glyphosate is “unlikely” to be carcinogenic.
If Monsanto succeeds before the supreme court, it will make it difficult for consumers to file such lawsuits, not only against Monsanto, but against other pesticide makers.
Arguing before the court, Monsanto attorney Paul Clement told jurors that the provisions within FIFRA are “clear” in preventing pesticide makers from changing safety warnings on a pesticide label without EPA approval, and thus cannot be held liable for not issuing a cancer warning.
“Congress clearly wanted uniformity when it comes to pesticide safety warnings,” Clement told the judges. “Disregarding Congress’ clear guidance here will open the door to crippling litigation and undermine the interests of farmers who rely on legally registered pesticides for their livelihoods.”
Clement repeatedly argued that the EPA’s pesticide approval process is rigorous and that its position that glyphosate is not carcinogenic is supported by other regulatory agencies “around the world.”
Another opponent of Monsanto’s position was Sarah Harris, Deputy Solicitor General of the Department of Justice. Harris told the judges that states cannot try to “second-guess or undermine” the EPA’s process.
In opposition to Monsanto, attorney Ashley Keller told jurors that “the United States is wrong” and said that FIFRA does not provide the full authority that Monsanto claims is “enforceable.” He also told jurors that the EPA’s registration system has significant flaws and pointed out that it has not updated its glyphosate registration every 15 years as required by law, saying things are “going through the cracks at that agency.”
He also pointed out that the EPA’s findings on human health and glyphosate were thrown out by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 for failing to follow established guidelines for determining cancer risk and ignoring important studies.
Sometimes to interrupt the argument in the middle, the judges asked the lawyers questions in many ways. Some have pressed Monsanto’s attorney on how labeling issues should be handled when new science showing harm arises amid EPA reviews, while others have questioned the fairness of penalizing the company repeatedly for lacking warnings on the EPA-approved label.
“Both sides make a good case,” said Daniel Hinkle, senior policy adviser at the American Association for Justice, who was present at the hearings. “I thought they asked serious questions and were dealing with the consequences of the case.”
Bayer said the Supreme Court’s decision will help end the litigation. It supports Monsanto’s lawsuit against Syngenta, a Chinese company that is also being sued by thousands of people in the US who say the company failed to warn them about research linking Syngenta’s herbicide products to Parkinson’s disease.
In addition to Monsanto and Syngenta, future lawsuits against other pesticide makers may be similarly limited, according to legal experts.
Bayer released a statement following the Supreme Court hearing expressing gratitude for “the court’s careful consideration of FIFRA’s uniform language and how its statutory provision applies to state-based label warnings.”
“We believe that the US Government and the Company have made persuasive arguments that government-based warning claims ‘in addition to or different from’ the warning labels mandated by the EPA under FIFRA, as in Durnell, have been ignored, and this is necessary to avoid the consolidation of 50 different labels,” the company said. “Companies should not be penalized under state law for complying with federal labeling requirements. The security and affordability of the nation’s food supply depends on the ability of farmers and producers to trust the science-based judgment of federal regulators.”
Both before and during the hearing, protesters affiliated with Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) gathered outside the courthouse to protest the Trump administration’s support for Monsanto, citing the Solicitor General’s support for Monsanto’s position and Trump’s recent executive order declaring the protection of glyphosate production a matter of national security. Some shouted “People over poison” and others held up signs with slogans such as “Roundup the guilty” and “Make Monsanto pay.”
“It’s important right now that we stand up and let not only the Supreme Court know but our legislative branch and our executive branch that we will no longer stand for poisoning…. These companies must be held accountable and they are starting today,” said Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America and leader of MAHA.
Alexandra Munoz, a private toxicologist, accompanied the protesters. “I’ve read the books about glyphosate and it’s carcinogenic. The evidence is really clear.”
US Representative Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine, was among the many lawmakers who joined the rally.
“These are issues that I have been struggling with for a long time,” Pingree told the New Lede. “To have a real rally in front of the Supreme Court, to have so many people from all over the country and to have so many Republicans and Democrats come together to detox our food, our environment, our agricultural system, it’s a great day.”
The Supreme Court hearing comes as the US House Rules Committee takes up the new Farm Bill, officially known as HR 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.
Pingree and U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, last week announced an amendment to the Farm Bill that would remove provisions to protect chemical manufacturers like Bayer from lawsuits and “state and local warning label laws or regulations on the use of potentially hazardous products.”
