NASHVILLE, TN – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a case that could affect pesticide lawsuits across agriculture. Brigit Rollins with the National Agricultural Law Center said the ruling could shape how failure-to-warn claims are handled for Roundup and other crop protection products.
In the case Durnell v. Monsanto, a Missouri man claims Roundup exposure caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A jury awarded him $1.25 million, and Missouri courts allowed that verdict to stand.
Bayer, which owns Monsanto, argues the case should be blocked by federal law. The company says FIFRA gives the EPA authority over pesticide labeling and that states cannot impose warning requirements that differ from federal standards.
The plaintiff argues his claim can still move forward. He says federal law already bars misbranding and that his case also points to older marketing materials that described Roundup as safe.
The outcome could extend well beyond a single product. The Court’s decision may influence thousands of pending cases and help define how far federal pesticide law reaches when state courts hear product-warning disputes.
Farm-Level Takeaway: The Supreme Court’s ruling could affect pesticide warning claims well beyond Roundup.