Case: Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell, No. 24-1068
Lower Court: Missouri
Docketed: 2025-04-09
Status: Granted
Question Presented: Whether FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim where EPA has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval.
On February 23, 2026, Paul D. Clement filed Monsanto’s opening brief, marking the first full merits submission in a case set for argument on April 27, 2026. The brief arrives after the Court’s January 16 grant, which drew wide attention given the volume of Roundup litigation pending in state courts nationwide.
John Durnell sued Monsanto under Missouri tort law, alleging that Roundup’s glyphosate-based formula caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto failed to warn of that risk. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA approval before any pesticide label change. EPA has repeatedly declined to require a cancer warning for glyphosate. The Missouri Court of Appeals allowed the state claim to proceed.
The legal question is whether a state jury can effectively mandate a warning that EPA has affirmatively refused to require. Monsanto’s position is that permitting such claims creates an irreconcilable conflict: a manufacturer cannot comply with both a jury verdict demanding a warning and a federal regulatory scheme that prohibits adding one without agency approval. Seven amicus briefs, including one from CropLife America, signal that agricultural and chemical industries view the outcome as significant for the broader structure of federal pesticide regulation.
Respondent’s counsel, Ashley Conrad Keller and David C. Frederick, will represent John Durnell before the Court. The Court’s ruling will clarify how much deference EPA’s labeling decisions receive when state tort law points in a different direction. Full docket details are available at the Supreme Court docket.