Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
John Durnell spent years spraying Roundup without protective gear because he trusted the EPA-approved label that said it was safe. He developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A St. Louis jury awarded him $1.25 million, finding that Monsanto failed to warn him about cancer risks. On January 16, 2026, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear whether you can sue in state court when federal agencies have already approved a product. The decision will determine whether federal approval functions as a legal shield that corporations can hide behind even when juries think they lied.
Federal Preemption and Product Liability
If a product hurts you, can you sue the company? That depends on whether federal approval blocks your lawsuit. The basic idea comes from the Constitution: federal law wins when it conflicts with state law.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, passed in 1947 and amended in 1972, contains language limiting state authority over pesticide labeling. Monsanto’s argument is straightforward: if the EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, then Missouri can’t require one through a jury verdict. This legal principle is called “preemption.”
The EPA didn’t ban a cancer warning—it didn’t require one. That distinction matters.
Courts have disagreed on this question in different industries. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth v. Levine that FDA approval of a drug label doesn’t prevent states from holding pharmaceutical companies liable for inadequate warnings. But two years later, in PLIVA v. Mensing, the justices held that generic drug manufacturers can’t be sued for inadequate warnings because they’re legally bound to use the FDA-approved label and have no authority to change it.
What the EPA Determined About Glyphosate Safety
The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly determined that glyphosate—Roundup’s active ingredient—is not likely to cause cancer in humans. The agency has maintained this position for decades, reaffirming it through multiple reviews.
But in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a WHO organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Based on available evidence, including studies the EPA had access to and apparently weighed differently.
Different authoritative bodies looked at similar evidence and reached different conclusions. The EPA said safe enough. The IARC said probably carcinogenic. European regulators approved continued use but with enhanced restrictions. Some countries banned it entirely.
Evidence presented in various trials suggested the company had internal studies raising questions about glyphosate safety that weren’t fully disclosed to regulators. The EPA made its initial safety determination decades ago. New studies have emerged since then. The question isn’t whether the EPA’s original decision was reasonable—it’s whether that decision should permanently immunize a company from liability even as new evidence accumulates.
Financial Stakes and Industry Impact
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, faces tens of thousands of pending cases. If the justices rule that federal law preempts these claims, Bayer could move to dismiss most of them. If they rule the other way, the litigation continues.
A ruling in favor of the manufacturer would ripple through pharmaceutical liability cases, medical device litigation, industrial chemical exposure claims—any context where a federal agency has approved a product. Syngenta is facing thousands of lawsuits from people who used its paraquat pesticide and developed Parkinson’s disease. A broad preemption ruling would give that company—and countless others—a template for getting cases dismissed based on federal approval.
The business community argues that without federal preemption, companies face 50 different legal regimes, each potentially requiring different warnings. But that argument assumes the EPA’s determination is correct and final. What if the agency got it wrong, or what if new evidence emerged that the agency hasn’t yet incorporated?
Who Supports Each Side
Organizations supporting the manufacturer include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Tort Reform Association, Product Liability Advisory Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, and CropLife America. On the other side: public health organizations, environmental advocacy groups, and plaintiffs’ attorneys who see state courts as a necessary check on federal agencies that might be subject to regulatory capture or that lag behind emerging science.
Possible Outcomes
The justices could rule narrowly, addressing only the specific question of label-based failure-to-warn claims. Durnell’s lawyers argued he relied not on the EPA-approved label but on broader marketing characterizing the product as safe for household use. A narrow ruling might leave room for those claims to survive even if label-based claims get preempted.
Or the justices could rule broadly, establishing a principle that federal approval of any product preempts state tort claims about inadequate warnings. That would reshape American product liability law across every regulated industry.
Federal Regulators vs. State Juries: Who Decides Product Safety?
Strip away the legal jargon and here’s what’s at stake: can you sue a company for failing to warn you about dangers when a federal agency approved the product without requiring that warning?
If the answer is no—if federal approval becomes a shield against liability—then your ability to hold companies accountable depends entirely on federal regulators getting it right. Federal regulators are human. They make mistakes. They sometimes rely on industry-funded studies. They can be subject to political pressure. They don’t always keep up with emerging science.
State lawsuits provide a backup system to hold companies accountable. They let juries hear evidence about what a company knew and when. They create incentives for companies to monitor their products and disclose new risks even after federal approval. They allow for regional variation when different communities might reasonably weigh risks differently.
Nothing prevents a company from including warnings beyond what federal agencies require. The question is whether they can be held liable for not doing so.
The manufacturer’s position is that including a cancer warning would violate federal law because the EPA determined such a warning would be false and misleading. But did the EPA make that determination? Or did it simply decline to require a warning, which is different from prohibiting one?
That distinction—the difference between the EPA saying “we don’t require this warning” versus “you can’t include this warning”—might determine the case. If the EPA actively decided that a cancer warning would be inappropriate and misleading, preemption makes more sense. If it didn’t require a warning, leaving companies free to include additional warnings if they chose, then state courts can fill that gap without conflicting with federal law.
Arguments will take place sometime in spring 2026, with a decision expected by late June. Thousands of people are waiting to find out whether they’ll get to present their cases to juries or whether federal preemption will close the courthouse doors before they get that chance.
Durnell sprayed the weed killer for years, trusting that if it was dangerous, someone would have warned him. The EPA didn’t require a warning. The manufacturer didn’t provide one. He got cancer. A jury said the company should pay. Now the justices will decide if that jury had the authority to make that call at all.
A broad ruling in favor of the manufacturer could turn federal approval from a baseline requirement into a complete legal shield against lawsuits. This would eliminate one of the main ways Americans can hold corporations accountable when products cause harm despite government approval. Conversely, a ruling for Durnell would preserve the traditional role of state courts in protecting consumers, even when federal agencies have signed off on a product’s safety claims.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.