U.S. Supreme Court backs Monsanto in its fight against liability from popular weed killer

U.S. Supreme Court backs Monsanto in its fight against liability from popular weed killer

The Supreme Court agreed to shield Monsanto from liability over its popular weed killer Roundup, dealing a victory to the company's new owner as it struggles to resolve thousands of costly lawsuits from people who claim the key ingredient caused their cancers. The central issue in the case, filed by Missouri resident John Durnell, is who decides what should appear on a pesticide or insecticide label—and whether a federal law overrides state claims.

In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh: "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," Kavanaugh wrote.

This decision "provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply," Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said. "This litigation has enormous costs for the company and has impacted public trust. The decision brings overdue justice on an issue that should have been clarified much earlier."

The company's lawyer, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, told the Supreme Court there's a need for a single, uniform standard. "You shouldn't let a single Missouri jury second-guess that judgment," Clement said during oral argument in April.

Jackson, in her dissent, said the majority misunderstood FIFRA's requirements, saying adding a cancer warning doesn't conflict with the law.

President Trump signed an executive order to boost domestic production of glyphosate, which has contributed to a rupture between the White House and some MAHA supporters.

The current U.S. Solicitor General, John Sauer, sided with Monsanto — as did the majority of the Supreme Court justices.