SCOTUS: FIFRA Preempts State Failure-to-Warn Tort Claims

In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the U.S. Supreme Court held that FIFRA expressly preempts certain state-law failure-to-warn claims tied to pesticide labeling. Decided June 25, 2026 in a 7–2 opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court reversed a Missouri decision that had upheld a jury verdict based on allegations that Monsanto failed to include a cancer warning on Roundup. The case number was 24-1068. The Court said 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b) bars states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal requirements, preempting tort claims alleging missing warnings that EPA has not required on an approved label—at least when EPA has affirmatively evaluated the risk. The decision strengthens preemption defenses for FIFRA-regulated products in product-liability suits where plaintiffs argue injuries based on the absence of EPA-not-required statements. Background cited includes EPA’s registration review process and Roundup’s glyphosate evaluations, noting EPA has never required a cancer warning on Roundup labels.