{"id":2595881,"date":"2026-04-27T19:16:01","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T23:16:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-split-over-roundup-cancer-warning-lawsuit\/"},"modified":"2026-04-27T19:20:17","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T23:20:17","slug":"supreme-court-split-over-roundup-cancer-warning-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-split-over-roundup-cancer-warning-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court split over Roundup cancer warning lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-split-over-roundup-cancer-warning-lawsuit%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2595881&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether consumers can sue Bayer (through its Monsanto unit) over Roundup\u2019s alleged failure to include cancer-risk warning labels, or whether <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >federal pesticide rules prevent state-based labeling lawsuits<\/a>. The case, *Monsanto v. durnell*, turns on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and whether the EPA\u2019s role in pesticide registration preempts additional state labeling requirements based on new or known risks.<\/p>\n<p>John Durnell claims his cancer was triggered by glyphosate exposure. A Missouri jury awarded him damages in 2019 for Monsanto\u2019s alleged failure to warn, and the dispute reached federal court after further appeals. Glyphosate is widely used in agriculture and has been linked to cancer risk concerns after an international cancer agency classified it as \u201cprobably carcinogenic to humans.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In arguments, Bayer and the Justice Department contend FIFRA gives the EPA final authority over labeling, emphasizing statutory language about states not imposing labeling requirements beyond federal rules. Durnell\u2019s lawyer argues the statute\u2019s delegation to the EPA doesn\u2019t eliminate states\u2019 ability to pursue \u201cfailure-to-warn\u201d claims,especially if EPA registration alone doesn\u2019t effectively establish that labels are fully protective.<\/p>\n<p>Justices questioned the parties on federal\/state uniformity, whether registration and labeling should be treated as separate, and whether EPA review is sufficient to justify not updating warnings as science evolves. The Court is expected to decide by the end of June; the outcome could affect broader pesticide policy and political debates tied to the Make America Healthy Again movement.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<article class=\"fn-body\">\n<p>The <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\">Supreme Court<\/a> appeared split Monday over whether to allow lawsuits against Bayer for not including a warning label about cancer risks on its Roundup weedkiller to proceed, as the company and the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/department-of-justice\/\">Justice Department<\/a> argued that federal law preempts state labeling laws for herbicides and pesticides.<\/p>\n<p>The justices heard arguments in <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4542541\/future-maha-balance-supreme-court-hears-roundup-case\/\">Monsanto v. Durnell<\/a><\/em>  over whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a \u201cfailure-to-warn\u201d about labels if the Environmental Protection Agency did not require a warning. A \u201cfailure-to-warn\u201d is when a company fails to disclose that a product poses some type of significant hidden danger, such as by containing chemicals linked to cancer, in violation of the law.<\/p>\n<section class=\"explore-more-section\" id=\"wex-recommended-widget\">\n<div class=\"magazine-container single\">\n<h1 class=\"magazine-title mt-2\">Recommended Stories<\/h1>\n<p>             <i class=\"fa-solid fa-play icon\"><\/i>         <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-grid\">\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4544035\/john-roberts-questions-expectation-of-privacy-for-voluntarily-shared-location-data\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>John Roberts questions \u2018expectation of privacy\u2019 for voluntarily shared location data<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4544190\/supreme-court-allows-texas-pro-gop-redistricting-to-stand\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Supreme Court allows Texas\u2019s pro-GOP redistricting to stand<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4544063\/supreme-court-punts-on-school-secret-gender-transition-cases\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Supreme Court punts on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-allows-texass-pro-gop-redistricting-to-stand\/\" title=\"Supreme Court allows Texas&#039;s pro-GOP redistricting to stand\">school secret gender transition cases<\/a><\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<p>The plaintiff in the case, John Durnell, alleges that his cancer was triggered by glyphosate exposure. A jury in 2019 in Missouri awarded $1.25 million in damages to Durnell, citing the failure of Monsanto, which makes Roundup and whose parent company is Bayer, to warn its consumers about the cancer risk. A Missouri appellate court sided with Durnell, and the state Supreme Court declined to take up Monsanto\u2019s second appeal, prompting federal involvement. <\/p>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<p>Glyphosate, a non-selective herbicide, is the most common weedkiller in the United States, with roughly 280 million pounds of glyphosate being sprayed onto nearly 300 million acres of farmland annually, according to the EPA. Although Roundup is most commonly known as a household product, it is used in agriculture as a desiccant, a chemical sprayed on crops to effectively kill them to make harvesting easier. <\/p>\n<p>A working group of the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.iarc.who.int\/featured-news\/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate\/\">International Agency for Research on Cancer<\/a> from the World Health Organization classified glyphosate as \u201cprobably carcinogenic to humans\u201d in 2015, sparking billions of dollars of civil litigation against Monsanto in the decade since. <\/p>\n<p>Much of the arguments Monday morning before the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/6-takeaways-from-the-supreme-court-decision-protecting-americans-right-to-self-defense\/\" title=\"6 Takeaways From The Supreme Court Decision Protecting Americans\u2019 Right To Self-Defense\">high court focused<\/a> on the specific wording in the FIFRA, which Bayer and the DOJ say gives the EPA the final authority on labeling requirements for pesticides under its jurisdiction. <\/p>\n<p>The company pointed to the clause that says a \u201cstate shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under\u201d federal law. <\/p>\n<p>Paul Clement, representing Monsanto, said the word \u201cunder\u201d in the statute is key to its argument, specifically how it acts as a preemption to laws enacted by states regarding herbicides.\u00a0Bayer argues that FIFRA gives the EPA final authority over registering a product, meaning that it is approved as safe before getting the green light to be marketed.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBut the language of FIFRA\u2019s preemption provision, just like the language of the preemption provision for the medical device amendments that were at issue in the <em>Riegel<\/em> case, both of those uses the word \u2018under,\u2019 and I think that word textually captures the various requirements that are imposed at a device-specific level or a herbicide-specific level in the context of the registration process here,\u201d Clement argued, referring to Supreme Court 2008 ruling <em>Riegel v. Medtronic<\/em>, which found a similar federal preemption for medical devices.<\/p>\n<p>Ashley Keller, representing Durnell, argued that, although the statute is phrased similarly to the one at the center of the <em>Riegel<\/em> case, it does not mean it preempts state labeling laws.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe agree, we\u2019re good textualists,\u201d Keller said. \u201cWe don\u2019t ignore prepositions, and we agree there are affirmative delegations of authority to the administrator to issue regulations that create labeling requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cMonsanto\u2019s problem is they\u2019re not relying on any of those regulations. They are relying on registration and registration alone. There is nothing in, by, under, or next to FIFRA that makes the registration decisions that EPA makes binding labeling requirements with preemptive force,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-kavanaugh-sympathetic-to-bayer\">Kavanaugh sympathetic to Bayer<\/h2>\n<p>Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed the most sympathetic to Bayer during his questioning. <\/p>\n<p>Kavanaugh asked Clement whether Bayer can be held liable for misbranding its product\u00a0after new information has come to light about its risks.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI think you\u2019re saying that EPA can change requirements going forward, but if it tries to say you were misbranding when you did what they told you, that\u2019s a retroactivity problem of sorts, in the sense that they\u2019re penalizing you retroactively for something that is now required,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>Kavanaugh also intensely probed Keller\u2019s argument on behalf of Durnell, questioning whether having different regulatory regimes based upon the state violated the principle of uniformity of the laws between the federal and state governments.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cUnder federal law, if they do a different label than what EPA has approved, would they be violating federal law?\u201d Kavanaugh asked.<\/p>\n<p>Keller said that federal supremacy requires \u201cuniformity in the law\u201d rather than uniformity in product labeling.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe law of Missouri and the law of the United States have to be the same. \u2026 It does not require fact finders to find the facts the same way,\u201d said Keller, adding that different juries in different jurisdictions can rightfully come to two different conclusions.<\/p>\n<p>During his closing, Clement said such a regime would be impossible. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cOn uniformity, it\u2019s worse than 50 states. It\u2019s every jury is a new day,\u201d said Clement.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-jackson-skeptical-of-the-review-process\">Jackson skeptical of the review process<\/h2>\n<p>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to be the most dubious of Bayer\u2019s argument, pressing Clement on his client\u2019s position.<\/p>\n<p>Jackson questioned Clement at length as to whether registration and branding ought to be considered two separate issues.<\/p>\n<p>Multiple other justices, including Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, followed suit, as Clement offered conflicting answers.<\/p>\n<p>Jackson also scrutinized whether the EPA\u2019s review process for registering a product as safe is sufficient to justify not changing package labeling as new evidence emerges.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere\u2019s a 15-year window between when that product has to be registered again, and lots of things can happen in science in terms of development of the product,\u201d said Jackson.<\/p>\n<p>Keller, on behalf of Durnell, argued that a product can still be mislabeled even if the reviewing agency has not conducted a new review. <\/p>\n<p>He referenced the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s process, citing that drugs can be misbranded even if they are certified by the agency after new data is presented. Keller said that FDA gets \u201ca lot more rigorous, upfront data\u201d and does more label changes than EPA.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe FDA agrees that post-NDA application, post-approval, you can still have a misbranded drug,\u201d Keller said. \u201cIt shouldn\u2019t be less protective of consumers under the context of FIFRA, where the EPA is operating, with less information on those points.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4542541\/future-maha-balance-supreme-court-hears-roundup-case\/\"><strong>FUTURE OF MAHA IN THE BALANCE AS SUPREME COURT HEARS ROUNDUP CASE<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in <em>Monsanto v. Durnell<\/em> by the end of June, when the justices are expected to wrap up their current term.<\/p>\n<p>If the justices rule in favor of Bayer, the issue could have significant consequences for the Make America Healthy Again movement and the 2026 midterm elections this November. <\/p>\n<p>A <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2026\/04\/06\/poll-maha-beliefs-rfk-trump-00856922\"><em>Politico <\/em>poll<\/a> from early April found that nearly 7 in 10 people support greater restrictions on pesticide use.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court split on whether lawsuits can proceed vs. Bayer over Roundup cancer warning labels; case is Monsanto v. Durnell<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4267,"featured_media":2595882,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-collage-lrhdsaydt-1777326313219-e1777330721827.jpg?1777316315&amp;w=696","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[78701,74501,32275],"class_list":["post-2595881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-cancer-warning","tag-roundup-2","tag-supreme-court"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-collage-lrhdsaydt-1777326313219-e1777330721827.jpg?1777316315&amp;w=696","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2595881","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4267"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2595881"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2595881\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2595885,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2595881\/revisions\/2595885"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2595882"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2595881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2595881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2595881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}