The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the Durnell Roundup™ case. The review centers on federal preemption and conflicting lower court rulings
Monsanto petitioned the Court in April 2025, asking it to address a split among federal circuit courts over the application of federal preemption, a recurring issue in Roundup litigation. The company expects a decision on the merits during the Court’s 2026 session, which concludes in June.
“The Supreme Court decision to take the case is good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity,” said Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer in a news release. “It is also an important step in our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain this litigation. It is time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements.”
The company notes that regulatory agencies worldwide have concluded glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely.
The Supreme Court previously requested the views of the Solicitor General. In December, Solicitor General John Sauer submitted a brief on behalf of the U.S. government supporting review of the case and urging the court to resolve the circuit split.
In the brief, Sauer argues that allowing the Durnell ruling to stand would permit juries to override scientific determinations made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding glyphosate safety. He writes that the EPA has repeatedly found glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and has approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings. He adds that the Court’s intervention is warranted to give the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act’s preemption provision proper effect.
Sauer also warns of broader consequences if Durnell is upheld, citing prior Supreme Court precedent that cautions against subjecting manufacturers to differing state-level labeling requirements when the EPA has already specified health warnings for a pesticide label.
In its petition, the company argues that inconsistent rulings among federal circuit courts require resolution by the nation’s highest court. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled in Schaffner that FIFRA expressly preempts state failure-to-warn claims similar to those raised in Durnell. The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, along with Missouri’s intermediate appellate court, have reached different conclusions.
The company contends that guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court is needed to ensure consistent application of federal law across state and federal courts.
The Durnell case was tried in October 2023 in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on one of three claims, determining the company failed to warn of product risk and awarding $1.25 million in damages. The jury rejected the remaining claims and did not award punitive damages.
The company appealed the verdict in August 2024. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, upheld the decision in February 2025. Monsanto then sought review by the Missouri Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case on April 1. The company filed its petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court three days later.
