Key Takeaways
- U.S. Supreme Court requests the Solicitor General’s views on Monsanto’s petition for certiorari
- Case centers on whether federal law (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims
- Monsanto argues circuit court split requires Supreme Court clarification
- 18 organizations file amicus briefs in support, citing implications for agriculture and manufacturing
- A ruling could have nationwide impact on glyphosate litigation and federal regulatory authority
Monsanto Pushes for Supreme Court Resolution on Federal Preemption in Glyphosate Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has formally requested input from the U.S. Solicitor General in Monsanto v. Durnell, following Monsanto’s April 2025 petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition asks the Court to resolve a growing legal split over whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims regarding the herbicide glyphosate.
This request marks the first time Monsanto, a subsidiary of Bayer, has sought Supreme Court review since the 3rd Circuit’s ruling in Schaffner, which found that FIFRA expressly preempted state failure-to-warn claims. Courts in other jurisdictions, including the 9th and 11th Circuits and Missouri’s intermediate appellate court in Durnell, have ruled otherwise.
Monsanto Highlights Risk to Regulatory Uniformity and Innovation
Bayer CEO Bill Anderson welcomed the Supreme Court’s request, stating: “We see this request as an encouraging step… When courts permit companies to be punished under state law for following federal law, it makes companies like ours a prime target of the litigation industry and threatens farmers and innovations that patients and consumers need for their nutrition and health.”
Monsanto argues that inconsistent rulings undermine confidence in federal regulatory systems like FIFRA, which prohibits states from imposing additional or conflicting labeling requirements. The company maintains that such fragmentation puts the food supply, agricultural innovation, and public trust at risk.
Broad Support from Agriculture and Industry for Monsanto Petition
The Durnell case has drawn national attention, with 18 organizations filing amicus briefs urging the Court to accept Monsanto’s petition. These include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and major agricultural groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The Chamber noted: “The stakes of this case… are enormous. If federal preemption is discarded… manufacturers will routinely face potentially crushing liability under state law for failing to give warnings that federal law forbids.”
Grower coalitions warned that limiting glyphosate use could lead to immediate disruptions in American agriculture, citing the chemical’s foundational role in food production systems.
Background on Durnell and Monsanto’s Legal Strategy
In Durnell, a Missouri jury awarded $1.25 million to a plaintiff in October 2023, finding that Monsanto failed to warn of health risks associated with glyphosate, despite regulatory approvals. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in February 2025, and the Missouri Supreme Court declined review in April, prompting Monsanto’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Monsanto’s broader legal strategy includes pursuing favorable rulings in remaining trials, supporting regulatory reforms, and considering settlements where strategically appropriate. The company has won 17 of its last 25 trials.
States Move Toward Regulatory Consistency with EPA Standards
As litigation involving glyphosate continues, several U.S. states have enacted legislation to clarify liability and align pesticide regulations with federal guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
- North Dakota HB 1318, signed into law at the end of April 2025, establishes that federally approved pesticide labels meet state requirements. This measure is intended to reduce legal uncertainty for manufacturers and users and received bipartisan support.
- Georgia SB 144, signed in mid-May 2025, prevents pesticide manufacturers from being held liable for not providing warnings beyond those approved by the EPA. The law takes effect on January 1, 2026, and applies to all EPA-registered pesticides.
