Supreme Court protects pesticides from some health claims in key Roundup case

Energy & Environment Supreme Court protects pesticides from some health claims in key Roundup case Comments: by Rachel Frazin - 06/25/26 10:11 AM ET Comments: Link copied by Rachel Frazin - 06/25/26 10:11 AM ET Comments: Link copied

NOW PLAYING

The Supreme Court on Thursday restricted Americans’ ability to sue pesticide makers over alleged health harms stemming from their products.

In a 7-2 ruling, the court held that some claims that pesticide companies failed to warn users of their products’ health risks are blocked under federal law.

The ruling is a win for Bayer and Monsanto, whose oft-litigated Roundup weed killer was at the center of the case. It’s also a win for the pesticide industry broadly.

It’s a loss for plaintiffs who sue such companies and allege that they did not adequately warn of the health harms their products may contribute to, including plaintiff John Durnell, a cancer patient whose $1.25 million verdict was challenged by Monsanto in the case.

It’s also a blow to the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which has united around the idea that these companies should not be shielded from liability.

The case is about whether people can bring state-level failure-to-warn claims for alleged health harms that are not formally recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — and therefore not federally required to be put on a pesticide’s label.

The companies have pointed to a provision in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to argue that the claims are preempted, which the court backed in its ruling.

The law says that states cannot impose “any requirements for labeling or packaging” for pesticides that are “different from those required” under the law.

The court now says that this means plaintiffs cannot pursue failure-to-warn claims under state laws if a pesticide complies with all labeling requirements set by the EPA.

Americans are still able to sue companies if they fail to list health risks that are required to be put on their label by the EPA.

“FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim,” said the opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“After EPA approves a pesticide’s label at registration, manufacturers are legally required to use that label unless and until EPA approves or requires a label change and amends the pesticide’s registration,” Kavanaugh wrote.

“If a manufacturer does not use the EPA-approved label, it may be subject to civil and criminal penalties,” he added. “Federal law therefore requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the label that EPA approved at the initial registration and that EPA has subsequently re-approved on multiple occasions — that is, the label without a cancer warning.”

His opinion was joined by justices across the ideological spectrum: John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Updated at 10:36 a.m. EDT.