Filing with the U.S. Supreme Court: Questions and Answers

It is the only claim in the Durnell case for which the jury attributed fault [or liability] to Monsanto; all other statutory or common-law claims were either dismissed at an earlier stage or otherwise rejected by the jury.

EPA has determined — repeatedly — that glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans, and it has approved — repeatedly — Roundup™ product labels that do not require a cancer warning.

Therefore, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts Durnell’s claim; this federal law dictates that labels for pesticides should be uniform and preempts state-law requirements for labeling, such as those alleged to be required by Durnell — that are different from or in addition to those required under federal law.

In its brief, the company argues that a split among federal circuit courts in the Roundup™ litigation on this cross-cutting federal preemption issue warrants review and resolution by the country’s top court.

In sum, we argue in this case that the company should not be punished under state law for complying with the requirements of federal law.

FIFRA’s comprehensive regulatory framework, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority over pesticide labeling, precludes states from imposing labels that are ‘in addition to or different from’ EPA’s approved label. Three different courts from various federal and state jurisdictions —in Schaffner, Peters, and Cardillo—have sided with Monsanto, ruling that state-based failure-to-warn claims are expressly preempted by FIFRA. These decisions highlight judicial recognition of federal uniformity in pesticide labeling and provide critical context for understanding Monsanto’s legal position on this issue.

Moreover, as the petition argues, courts in Hardeman, Carson and Durnell erred because they assessed the equivalency of federal and state label requirements at too high a level. And they ignored EPA regulations that require agency approval in advance for any label change, especially precautionary statements regarding human health. Thus, a state law requirement to provide health warnings not currently on the EPA approved label is ‘in addition to or different from’ federal requirements and expressly preempted by FIFRA’s labeling requirements.

These contrary holdings would open the door to 50 different state-required labels for glyphosate-containing herbicides, and any other products governed by FIFRA, in conflict with the clear intent of the Uniformity Provision of this federal statute.

We also believe that the state-based claims in Durnell are impliedly preempted because it is impossible for the company to comply with current federal law – which includes the EPA approved label – and conflicting state law requirements in Durnell simultaneously.

We are confident in our Supreme Court case and have the backing of the U.S. government as well. That said, in the case of an adverse ruling we would still have the class settlement program which, once approved, would cover all eligible current and potential future claimants, and would enable us to significantly contain the litigation.

An adverse Supreme Court decision would, however, perpetuate the regulatory uncertainty that hangs over both current crop protection tools and innovations that bring the next generation of tools to market. We would continue to argue that Schaffner, which was decided in our favor, is the most recent and robust Circuit Court decision on federal preemption and should be applied in other cases.

Beyond this, we are not going to speculate about what may be next.

A favorable Supreme Court decision could resolve substantial outstanding damage awards subject to pending appeals, which are not covered by the class settlement. And it could also foreclose other cases based on failure-to-warn theories, including opt outs from the class.

But we cannot assess the impact of a Supreme Court decision on the litigation, or its financial impact, until the Court decides - and we understand its scope and application

The language in question in this case involves the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) statute, so the circuit split and uncertainty it creates potentially affects all products registered under FIFRA – and there are thousands. However, this same or similar preemption language is contained in other statutes regulating medical devices, poultry products, meat, and motor vehicles, among others, that make resolution of this preemption split even more important, as courts often are guided by prior decisions interpreting similar language in other statutes.  

A favorable decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the cross-cutting federal preemption issue would contribute to significantly containing the U.S. Roundup™ litigation, as it should preempt any claims based on state-based failure-to-warn theories that are central to these cases.

The Supreme Court case will also provide regulatory clarity, which is important to crop protection products both present and future, as companies must be able to rely on science-based assessments made by regulators in order to innovate and bring new agricultural tools to market.

The company filed its opening brief on February 23, 2026. Amicus briefs in support of the petitioner are typically expected within seven days of the opening brief.

The respondent has 30 days (or until March 25, 2026) to submit his brief on the merits. Amicus briefs in support of the respondent are due seven days after their brief is filed.

The company will have an opportunity to file a reply brief, and then arguments are scheduled for April 27.

The court is expected to make its decision before its current term ends in June.

We expect a decision on the merits would come during the current term of the Court which runs through June 30, 2026.

A favorable decision from the Supreme Court is critical to resolving substantial outstanding damage awards subject to pending appeals, which are not covered by the class settlement. It also would cover opt outs from the class settlement, and it would foreclose present and future claims grounded on state label-based warning theories – which is the cross-cutting allegation in all of the Roundup cases to date. Some plaintiffs may attempt to continue litigating following a Supreme Court decision which could delay efforts to bring closure to the litigation. That is one of the reasons why we also need the class settlement as well, as it would cover current and potential future claims, regardless of legal theory.

Additionally, a favorable decision from the Supreme Court would provide much needed, definitive guidance from the nation’s top court on the application of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and specifically, its federal preemption provision. That provision plainly says that “any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from” those required by EPA under the statute are preempted. Clarity here is critical to support innovation, and for us to serve U.S farmers and consumers.

A favorable decision from the Supreme Court would be consistent with the Uniformity Provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which is designed to maintain consistency in labeling for federally registered pesticides like Roundup.™ It would preempt claims based on state failure-to-warn theories, which are central to this litigation, if they require warnings that are different from or in addition to those required by federal law as authorized by EPA. It is ultimately up to the courts to interpret and apply the Court’s decision.

It depends on the ruling of the Supreme Court.

But our view is that the claims in the vast majority of Roundup™ cases center on state-based failure to warn theories. Thus, a definitive, favorable ruling by the Court on federal preemption would foreclose or significantly limit the ability of plaintiffs to pursue cases in the future.

Our goal is to contain this litigation to the greatest degree and as quickly as possible so we can focus our full time and attention on our mission. The proposed class and the Supreme Court review in Durnell are independently necessary and mutually reinforcing steps to achieve this result.

The expectation of Supreme Court review of the cross-cutting question in this litigation – whether state claims based on failure-to-warn theories are preempted by federal law – helped make this class settlement possible. And Supreme Court review is critically important to resolve substantial liabilities in pending appeals, cover opt outs from the class and provide definitive guidance for agricultural companies and our customers on the application of federal law that is needed for future innovation. However, some plaintiffs may attempt to continue litigation and that could delay closure.

The proposed class settlement is designed to resolve both current and future claims alleging NHL injuries due to RoundupTM exposure regardless of specific legal theory. And once approved, it would be led by a professional claims’ administrator.

The Company will continue to pursue other elements of its multi-pronged strategy as well, including supporting legislation at the state and federal level, regulatory actions and other measures that are intended to help achieve regulatory clarity and contain litigation risk.

These actions are taking place solely to contain the litigation, and the settlement agreements do not contain any admission of liability or wrongdoing. Indeed, leading regulators worldwide, including the U.S. EPA, and EU regulatory bodies, continue to conclude based on an extensive body of science, that glyphosate-based herbicides – critical tools that farmers rely on to produce affordable food and feed the world – can be used safely and are not carcinogenic.

Yes, support of legislative efforts to bring regulatory clarity is continuing at both the state and federal level as this is important to not only the litigation but also future innovation.

We’ve said many times that the size and complexity of the glyphosate litigation, as well as the uncertainties regarding the application of federal law, which impact our current and future crop protection portfolio, require a multi-pronged strategy and no one action by itself is going to bring closure or certainty. So, we will continue our multi-pronged approach and continue to support efforts that will work together to contain litigation risk and bring regulatory clarity to the American agriculture sector.