Supreme Court Backs Monsanto in Glyphosate Lawsuit

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in favor of Monsanto regarding its herbicide product, Roundup. This decision may lead to the dismissal of numerous lawsuits against the company.

This ruling stems from a case involving John Darnell, who filed a lawsuit back in 2019. Darnell claimed that products containing glyphosate were responsible for his diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and argued that Monsanto failed to warn consumers about potential cancer risks.

However, the court declared that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not mandate cancer warnings on such products, and this federal directive overrides state law.

“Consistent with EPA’s view that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans, EPA does not require that glyphosate-based pesticides, like Roundup, include cancer warnings on their labels,” the court documents stated.

The court also highlighted that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) takes precedence over any state law labeling requirements that differ from federal standards.

According to reports, this ruling could impact thousands of ongoing lawsuits against Monsanto.

In a split decision of 7-2, Justice Clarence Thomas aligned with the majority, yet expressed concerns in a concurring opinion. He questioned the constitutionality of certain elements of the law, despite agreeing with the court’s interpretation of FIFRA.

“If agencies do not exercise their core legislative powers, particularly through programs that exceed even Congress’ authority, there will be far less opportunity to address conflicts between agency actions and state law that were not anticipated by the framers of the Constitution,” he remarked.

Dissenting opinion came from Justice Ketanji Brown, supported by Justice Neil Gorsuch. They contended that the court should have maintained the ruling of the lower court.

“By accepting Monsanto’s arguments and holding that Mr. Darnell’s non-warning claims are preempted, the court misunderstands FIFRA’s requirements…leaving Mr. Darnell without a remedy for the significant harm he has suffered,” her dissent read.