The Supreme Court gave Monsanto and parent company Bayer a huge win Thursday, ruling that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts certain lawsuits brought under state tort law.

In a statement, Monsanto said the decision "should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims."

The court ruled 7-2 that FIFRA trumps failure-to-warn lawsuits bringing "safety" claims. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

The case involves John Durnell, a Missouri man who alleged that Monsanto “failed to warn him of Roundup’s cancer risks and that he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result,” the court noted. He was awarded $1.25 million.

“But Durnell’s state tort claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label even though federal law requires Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label without a cancer warning,” the court’s opinion states. “Because Durnell’s state tort claim would impose a pesticide labeling requirement ‘in addition to or different from’ the label required by EPA, FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s claim,” it continued, quoting FIFRA.

“[I]n accordance with EPA’s view that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans, EPA has not required glyphosate-based pesticides like Roundup to include a cancer warning on their labels,” the opinion states. “Therefore, as a matter of federal law, Monsanto legally must use a label without a cancer warning unless and until EPA approves or requires a change.”

Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here. 

Dozens of farm and industry groups, as well as pesticide makers, the United States, and 15 states, backed Monsanto in the case. On the other side were plaintiffs’ lawyers, smaller farmer and farmworker groups, and 20 states and the District of Columbia. Three red states – Texas, Florida and Ohio – also supported Durnell, arguing that “the regulation of the distribution of poisonous substances falls squarely within the historic police powers of the states.”

But the court cited FIFRA’s own language in supporting uniformity of pesticide labeling.

“[C]rucially for this case, FIFRA includes a preemption clause that further underscores EPA’s comprehensive and exclusive authority in registering pesticides and approving labels,” the majority said. “In a provision entitled ‘Uniformity’ …, FIFRA prohibits states from imposing ‘any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under’ FIFRA."

In a footnote, the court noted that “states remain free to ‘regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide.’ For example, a state could outright ban a pesticide within its borders.”

Monsanto has proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement to address thousands of pending Roundup claims, most of those in state court. That settlement has received preliminary approval; a hearing on final approval is set for July 9, after which people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma would have 180 days to apply for compensation benefits.

The court said under FIFRA, “subject to narrow exceptions not relevant here, the manufacturer may not change the [pesticide] label unless EPA subsequently approves a manufacturer’s proposed change or EPA itself requires a change to the label.”

The question in the case is “whether the Missouri failure-to-warn claim —which would require a cancer warning on the Roundup label — would impose a labeling requirement that is ‘in addition to or different from’ federal labeling requirements imposed ‘under’ FIFRA. The answer is yes,” the court said.

The court distinguished its opinion from one issued in 2005, Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, involving peanut farmers who alleged an herbicide had damaged their crops. In that case, the court found FIFRA did not preempt their claims. 

"Bates distinguished between efficacy claims on the one hand — which EPA did not review as a part of registration — and safety claims on the other hand, which EPA does thoroughly review at registration and are therefore preempted," the opinion issued Thursday said.

In a brief statement, Monsanto called the decision "good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. Monsanto will continue to pursue final approval of the class settlement and other elements of its multi-pronged strategy to contain the Roundup litigation."

"The company is still reviewing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling and will provide a more comprehensive statement shortly," the statement said.

For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.