{"id":16308,"date":"2026-06-26T10:59:26","date_gmt":"2026-06-26T15:59:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=16308"},"modified":"2026-06-26T11:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-26T16:00:00","slug":"us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/","title":{"rendered":"US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA"},"content":{"rendered":"

The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in\u00a0<\/span>Monsanto v. Durnell<\/span><\/i>, holding state law failure-to-warn claims were preempted by federal law.\u00a0 [Read Opinion <\/span>here<\/span><\/a>.]\u00a0 Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority\u00a0opinion.\u00a0 Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Jackson authored a dissent\u00a0in which Justice Gorsuch joined.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Photo via Jonathan Cooper<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Quick Summary<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I know some of you are\u00a0not\u00a0going to read the lengthy explanation included below.\u00a0\u00a0Here is\u00a0the\u00a0quick summary of the decision:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Durnell sued Monsanto in state court claiming failure-to-warn because Roundup does not\u00a0contain\u00a0a cancer warning.\u00a0\u00a0Monsanto argued these claims were preempted by federal law.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh that state law failure-to-warn claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).\u00a0\u00a0The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers all of the potential health and environmental risks prior to approving a herbicide label. FIFRA includes a preemption provision prohibiting states from imposing any labeling requirements \u201cdifferent from or in addition to\u201d those required by FIFRA.\u00a0\u00a0Here, Mr. Durnell\u2019s failure-to-warn claim would require a cancer warning that is not included on the label approved by the EPA under FIFRA.\u00a0\u00a0The Court found this requirement to be in addition to or different from the FIFRA requirement, so the state law failure-to-warn claim was preempted by federal law.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For a medium-length summary from\u00a0SCOTUSblog,\u00a0<\/span>click here<\/span><\/a>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Background<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Monsanto is a subsidiary of Bayer AG that manufactures and distributes Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide.\u00a0\u00a0In 1974, the EPA first registered glyphosate-based herbicide products and approved Roundup\u2019s label with no cancer warning.\u00a0\u00a0The EPA has repeatedly re-evaluated glyphosate and has concluded it is unlikely to cause cancer.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

John Durnell filed suit in Missouri state court against Monsanto claiming after using Roundup for 20 years, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma.\u00a0\u00a0One of his specific legal claims was a state law claim for failure-to-warn in which he alleged Monsanto failed to include a cancer warning on Roundup\u2019s label.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In response, Monsanto argued\u00a0his\u00a0state law\u00a0failure-to-warn\u00a0claim was preempted by FIFRA.\u00a0\u00a0Specifically, Monsanto explained that federal law requires it to use the EPA-approved label for Roundup, which does not include a cancer warning.\u00a0\u00a0Mr. Durnell\u2019s state law claim would impose a labeling requirement \u201cin addition to or different from\u201d the label required by the\u00a0EPA under FIFRA and, therefore, FIFRA expressly preempts Mr. Durnell\u2019s\u00a0failure-to-warn\u00a0claim.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Lower Court Rulings<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

At trial, the jury sided with Mr. Durnell on his\u00a0failure-to-warn\u00a0claim, rejecting Monsanto\u2019s preemption argument.\u00a0\u00a0They awarded Mr. Durnell $1 million in damages.\u00a0\u00a0The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Monsanto sought review from the United States Supreme Court on the issue of preemption of the state law\u00a0failure-to-warn\u00a0claim.\u00a0\u00a0Federal courts of appeal and state courts have come to different conclusions on this issue, and the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the circuit split on this question.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Applicable Law<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

FIFRA requires pesticides be registered with the EPA.\u00a0\u00a0Before issuing a registration, the EPA conducts a review of the pesticide and its proposed label that manufacturers are required to submit with their registration application.\u00a0\u00a0A proposed label must include any necessary warning statements. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

FIFRA mandates a label cannot be \u201cmisbranded.\u201d\u00a0 A \u201cmisbranded\u201d label is one that contains any \u201cfalse or misleading \u201c statement or that does not contain a \u201cwarning or caution statement which may be necessary and adequate to protect health and the environment.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 The statute defines \u201cprotect health and the environment\u201d as protecting against \u201cany unreasonable adverse effects <\/span>o<\/span>n\u00a0the environment\u201d including \u201cany unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The EPA has issued regulations to carry out this mission, including regulations that specify the required content and label placement of precautionary statements like cancer warnings.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In summary, before registering a pesticide, the EPA evaluates the pesticide and its proposed label, and must make a number of determinations, including the proposed label contains all warnings necessary and adequate to protect human health and the environment, and the label is not false or misleading. EPA approving a registration means the EPA believes the pesticide is not misbranded, it does not contain any false or misleading information, and it does not omit a necessary warning. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Once a pesticide is registered and the label is approved, the EPA requires the manufacturer to use the approved label.\u00a0\u00a0Changes to the label must be approved by the EPA.\u00a0\u00a0Failure to use the approved label can result in criminal and civil penalties for the manufacturer. Even\u00a0after the label is approved, manufacturers\u00a0are required to\u00a0inform the EPA about\u00a0additional\u00a0information related to adverse effects of their products, and the EPA may also request\u00a0additional\u00a0information from the manufacturer.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, FIFRA includes a preemption clause titled \u201cUniformity\u201d that prohibits States from imposing \u201cany requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under FIFRA.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Supreme Court Opinion<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The United States Supreme Court\u00a0<\/span>reversed<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

State law\u00a0claim is\u00a0a labeling requirement.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court noted the law makes clear and the parties agree state law tort duties constitute state labeling requirements.\u00a0\u00a0Mr. Durnell\u2019s failure-to-warn claim is based on a common law failure-to-warn claim, which qualifies as a labeling requirement because those rules set the standard for product labeling.\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The question, then, is whether the Missouri\u00a0failure-to-warn\u00a0claim,\u00a0which would require a cancer warning on the Roundup label, imposes a labeling requirement that is \u201cin addition to or different from\u201d the requirements under FIFRA.\u00a0\u00a0The Court said the answer was yes.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

FIFRA sets forth the pesticide labeling approval process.\u00a0\u00a0A pesticide manufacturer must use the EPA-approved label or face potential criminal or civil fines.\u00a0The EPA has repeatedly approved the Roundup label without a cancer warning.\u00a0\u00a0The Missouri\u00a0failure-to-warn\u00a0claim would require a cancer warning\u00a0be\u00a0added to the label.\u00a0\u00a0That requirement, the Court held, is \u201cin addition to\u201d and \u201cdifferent from\u201d Monsanto\u2019s federal-law labeling requirements.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Precedent reinforces the Court\u2019s conclusion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court cited\u00a0<\/span>Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC<\/span><\/i>, which included an example of how FIFRA\u2019s preemption clause operates.\u00a0\u00a0If EPA\u00a0required\u00a0a \u201ccaution\u201d designation on a label, and a state law\u00a0failure-to-warn\u00a0claim targeted the label for saying \u201ccaution\u201d rather than \u201cdanger,\u201d the state law claim would be preempted by FIFRA.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>Bates<\/span><\/i>\u00a0distinguished the example\u00a0from\u00a0the claims in\u00a0<\/span>Bates<\/span><\/i>, which were based on the product\u2019s efficacy.\u00a0\u00a0The EPA does not review efficacy claims as part of the registration process, but it does thoroughly review safety claims.\u00a0\u00a0Thus, safety claims are preempted, while efficacy claims are not.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In\u00a0<\/span>Durnell<\/span><\/i>, the Court explained,\u00a0safety claims are involved.\u00a0The EPA\u2019s registration determination reflects EPA\u2019s judgment that the label is not false, misleading, and is not\u00a0lacking necessary warnings.\u00a0\u00a0Thus, any claims that would impose\u00a0additional\u00a0or different labeling requirements are preempted.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court turned to\u00a0<\/span>Riegel v.\u00a0Medtronic<\/span><\/i>, a case involving the Medical Device Amendments (MDA), which function nearly identically to FIFRA\u2019s preemption clause. Like the EPA is required to do under FIFRA, the MDA requires the FDA to consider safety requirements to approve devices.\u00a0\u00a0Thus, state law claims based on safety-related concerns are preempted by the MDA. Allowing Mr. Durnell\u2019s state law tort claim to overcome FIFRA preemption would impact more than just pesticides and herbicides but would impact the MDA and several other statutes containing nearly identical preemption language.\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court rejected Mr. Durnell\u2019s arguments.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Next, the Court rejected\u00a0Mr.\u00a0Durnell\u2019s four arguments.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First, Mr. Durnell argued the state law failure-to-warn claim, like FIFRA itself, simply requires manufacturers to include adequate warnings to protect human health and not to include false or misleading statements.\u00a0\u00a0The Court held that argument \u201coperates at far too high a level of generality and disregards the central and comprehensive role that EPA performs in making labeling determinations under FIFRA\u2019s registration provisions.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 FIFRA expressly affords preemptive force to federal requirements imposed under FIFRA. These constitute \u201crequirements\u201d under federal law. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, Mr. Durnell claimed that the EPA\u2019s regulations and procedures for registering pesticide labels exceed its authority under FIFRA.\u00a0\u00a0The Court said this was \u201cincorrect\u201d and noted FIFRA expressly directs the EPA to register pesticides and to determine if labeling complies with FIFRA\u2019s requirements. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Third, Mr. Durnell argued because the statute provides no registration shall be construed as a defense for the commission of any other offense under FIFRA, registration cannot serve as a defense to a state tort suit.\u00a0\u00a0The Court said this argument would \u201ceffectively erase FIFRA\u2019s express preemption clause.\u201d\u00a0 The text of this provision applies only to defenses for FIFRA violations, not state tort violations.\u00a0\u00a0Further, Mr. Durnell\u2019s reading of the regulations was incorrect.\u00a0\u00a0The regulations required a manufacturer to use the EPA-approved label. Mr. Durnell said Monsanto should have unilaterally changed its label to include a cancer warning. The EPA does not bring misbranding actions when a manufacturer is using an approved label.\u00a0\u00a0Instead, only if new safety information came to light, the EPA may gather additional information and take action if it were to find the current label misleading.\u00a0 That did not happen here. Additionally, Monsanto was not relying merely on the fact that its product is registered as complete defense; instead, Monsanto was relying on the EPA\u2019s determination that cancer warnings are not required for Roundup. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Fourth, Mr. Durnell raised concern over new safety information that arises after the EPA has registered a label.\u00a0\u00a0There is, the Court explained, a process for manufacturers to provide additional safety information, and they are required to do so.\u00a0\u00a0Additionally, the EPA keeps abreast of new safety developments and is able to request additional information about a product. Additionally, third parties can bring this type of <\/span>information<\/span>\u00a0to\u00a0<\/span>the<\/span>\u00a0EPA for consideration.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

FIFRA demands uniformity and expressly preempts\u00a0<\/span>stat<\/span>e\u00a0labeling requirements that are \u201cin addition to\u201d or \u201cdifferent from\u201d federal labeling requirements.\u00a0\u00a0Mr. Durnell\u2019s state\u00a0law\u00a0failure-to-warn\u00a0claim\u00a0would\u00a0require\u00a0a cancer warning on Roundup\u2019s label.\u00a0\u00a0This warning would be \u201cin addition to\u201d or different from\u201d the label required by the EPA.\u00a0\u00a0FIFRA expressly preempts Mr. Durnell\u2019s claim.\u00a0\u00a0The case\u00a0was reversed and\u00a0remanded.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Concurring Opinion<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Thomas wrote a\u00a0concurring\u00a0opinion.\u00a0\u00a0He joined the Court\u2019s opinion in full but wrote separately to address \u201csome of the underlying constitutional infirmities\u201d\u00a0of\u00a0FIFRA.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First, he said FIFRA exceeds the commerce clause because, in his view, the Commerce Clause \u201cdoes not allow Congress to regulate agriculture or manufacturing activities entirely separate from commerce.\u201d\u00a0 He pointed out FIFRA regulates not only manufacturers, but consumers as it addresses who may own and how they may use products that were purchased locally at a store down the street for use in his or her backyard.\u00a0\u00a0He believes FIFRA is \u201cunconstitutional in many applications.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, he said\u00a0FIFRA \u201craises questions about Congress\u2019 ability to delegate core legislative power to the EPA.\u201d\u00a0 Congress improperly delegated core legislative power to the EPA.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Third, he wrote agency action cannot preempt state law as it is beyond the scope of the Supremacy Clause. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Dissenting Opinion<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Jackson authored a lengthy dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Failure-to-warn claim is equivalent to FIFRA requirements\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Jackson\u00a0<\/span>explain<\/span>e<\/span>d<\/span> Mr. Durnell\u2019s failure-to-warn claim is not \u201cin addition to or different from\u201d FIFRA\u2019s mandates.\u00a0\u00a0Instead, she said, it is \u201cequivalent\u201d to FIFRA\u2019s key labeling requirement, <\/span>th<\/span>e misbranding prohibition.\u00a0\u00a0Further, she noted the state law claim does not conflict with any other FIFRA requirement because the EPA\u2019s registration of a pesticide and approval of its label does not create a labeling requirement under FIFRA. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The dissent explained FIFRA expressly limits States\u2019 authority to regulate pesticide labels, but it does not eliminate that authority.\u00a0\u00a0Instead, it preempts only those state requirements for labeling or packaging that are \u201cin addition to or different from\u201d the federal requirements. Thus, equivalent state law claims\u2014or claims where a violation of the state law also constitutes a violation of FIFRA\u2014are not preempted.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The dissent reasoned the \u201crequirements\u201d under FIFRA\u2019s misbranding provision and Missouri state law failure-to-warn claim are the same.\u00a0\u00a0The EPA did not set specific requirements for label warnings related to chronic risks like cancer.\u00a0\u00a0Absent federal law requirements, \u201ca state law duty that imply parallels FIFRA\u2019s misbranding prohibition is not preempted.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

She\u00a0offered\u00a0three\u00a0examples.\u00a0\u00a0Assume a state mandated pesticides causing moderate skin irritation to bear the word \u201cWARNING.\u201d\u00a0 That law would be preempted by FIFRA because the EPA regulations require labels for products causing moderate skin\u00a0<\/span>irr<\/span>itation\u00a0to bear the word \u201cCAUTION.\u201d\u00a0 That state labeling requirement is different from (and conflicts with) the EPA regulation.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

On the other hand,\u00a0if a state seeks to hold a manufacturer liable for failing to label a pesticide\u00a0with the same warning\u00a0<\/span>w<\/span>or<\/span>ds<\/span>\u00a0 federal regulations require, the application of the state law would not be preempted because the state requires the same warning, not one that is different or in addition to the FIFRA requirements. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Lastly, suppose a State wants to ensure pesticides are properly labeled and contain all necessary warnings to protect against unreasonable risk to humans and the environment.\u00a0\u00a0The State either enacts a statue that makes manufacturers liable for failing to provide these necessary warnings, or it relies on the existing tort regime to reach the same result. Either way, the state law scheme \u201cmerely duplicates\u201d FIFRA\u2019s necessary and adequate warning requirements and is, therefore, not preempted. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Based on this understanding, the dissenting justices believe \u201cit is easy to see that Durnell\u2019s failure-to-warn claim\u2026does not trigger preemption under FIFRA.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0Missouri\u2019s failure-to-warn law punishes the sale of unreasonably dangerous products like pesticides without adequate warning of the danger.\u00a0\u00a0This has the same practical effect as FIFRA\u2019s misbranding prohibition.\u00a0 Mr. Durnell\u2019s claim does not impose any labeling requirement in addition to or different from FIFRA.\u00a0\u00a0The standards prescribed by federal and state law are equivalent.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

FIFRA\u2019s misbranding provision\u00a0remains\u00a0a requirement.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

FIFRA provides registration of a herbicide is prima facie evidence its label complies with FIFRA requirements.\u00a0\u00a0But prima facie evidence is not conclusive evidence.\u00a0\u00a0Thus, when faced with a misbranding charge, registration is not a complete defense. Considering this, a pesticide may be registered but still misbranded.\u00a0\u00a0The dissent explained it is the combination of the registration process and the misbranding prohibition that dictates the contents of the label. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The dissent pointed to a situation in 1999 when the EPA approved a Roundup label that did not include any warning the product could leak.\u00a0\u00a0The EPA determined, after the label was approved and the product was registered, that the product could leak or spray onto the user when used in accordance with the label.\u00a0\u00a0The EPA imposed civil penalties on Monsanto for distributing or selling a misbranded product, even though they were using the approved label. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

FIFRA\u2019s misbranding provision remains a requirement manufacturers must follow even after the EPA\u2019s registration of a pesticide.\u00a0\u00a0A state law failure-to-warn claim that imposes identical requirements as the misbranding provision is not preempted. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The dissent also noted the misbranding provision makes clear that registration alone does not create a labeling requirement under FIFRA.\u00a0\u00a0The product\u2019s label must be both approved and not misbranded.\u00a0\u00a0The focus, then, is not merely on the label as approved by the EPA, but on the label as required under FIFRA, which includes the misbranding requirement.\u00a0\u00a0Thus, FIFRA\u2019s misbranding provision applies to pesticides.\u00a0\u00a0When a state-law requirement, such as a failure-to-warn claim parallels that misbranding requirement, the state law requirement can apply to the registered pesticide. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Monsanto\u2019s position cannot be squared with\u00a0Bates<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Riegel<\/i>\u00a0involved in\u00a0a different statute.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Next, the dissent explained <\/span>Bates<\/span><\/i>\u00a0makes clear, contrary to Monsanto\u2019s argument, that a registered pesticide can be misbranded.\u00a0\u00a0Critically,\u00a0<\/span>Bates<\/span><\/i>\u00a0explained\u00a0the difference between a registration decision for a particular pesticide and the\u00a0statutory language and regulations that apply to misbranding standards.\u00a0\u00a0The dissenting justices also read\u00a0<\/span>Bates<\/span><\/i>\u00a0distinction between claims of efficacy and\u00a0claims\u00a0of safety as irrelevant,\u00a0essentially claiming\u00a0it was dicta and not critical for the primary holding.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>Riegel<\/span><\/i>, the dissent explained, involves a completely different statute that has no misbranding provision like the one at issue in FIFRA. Additionally, <\/span>Riegel<\/span><\/i>\u00a0did not involve parallel claims, such as the ones here.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The dissent would reject the implied preemption claim as well.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Although the majority did not address the implied preemption claim since it ruled the claim was expressly preempted, the dissent did consider and reject the implied preemption argument.\u00a0\u00a0Monsanto can \u201ceasily comply with both federal and state law by stopping sales of Roundup.\u00a0\u00a0Under FIFRA it is unlawful to sell a misbranded pesticide. Under Missouri failure-to-warn law, manufacturers have a duty not to sell products made unreasonably dangerous by inadequate warnings. Far from being incompatible, both federal and state law <\/span>require<\/span><\/i>\u00a0Monsanto to stop selling its pesticide if the label lacks adequate warnings.\u201d\u00a0 Additionally, to keep marketing the product, Monsanto could simply add a cancer label.\u00a0\u00a0To the extent it needs approval from the EPA to do so, which the dissent\u00a0contests,\u00a0it could simply\u00a0submit\u00a0an application\u00a0for the amended registration.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in\u00a0Monsanto v. Durnell, holding state law failure-to-warn claims were preempted by federal law.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here.]\u00a0 Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority\u00a0opinion.\u00a0 Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Jackson authored a dissent\u00a0in which Justice Gorsuch joined.\u00a0 Quick Summary\u00a0 I know some of you are\u00a0not\u00a0going to read the lengthy explanation included below.\u00a0\u00a0Here is\u00a0the\u00a0quick summary of the decision:\u00a0 Mr. Durnell sued Monsanto in state court claiming failure-to-warn because Roundup does not\u00a0contain\u00a0a cancer warning.\u00a0\u00a0Monsanto argued these claims were preempted by federal law.\u00a0… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2444,"featured_media":16309,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-united-states-supreme-court-decisions"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nUS Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in\u00a0Monsanto v. Durnell, holding state law failure-to-warn claims were preempted by federal law.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here.]\u00a0 Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority\u00a0opinion.\u00a0 Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Jackson authored a dissent\u00a0in which Justice Gorsuch joined.\u00a0 Quick Summary\u00a0 I know some of you are\u00a0not\u00a0going to read the lengthy explanation included below.\u00a0\u00a0Here is\u00a0the\u00a0quick summary of the decision:\u00a0 Mr. Durnell sued Monsanto in state court claiming failure-to-warn because Roundup does not\u00a0contain\u00a0a cancer warning.\u00a0\u00a0Monsanto argued these claims were preempted by federal law.\u00a0... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-26T15:59:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-26T16:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/pexels-theshuttervision-12247010-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\"},\"headline\":\"US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-26T15:59:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-26T16:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2902,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/pexels-theshuttervision-12247010-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"United States Supreme Court Decisions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/\",\"name\":\"US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/pexels-theshuttervision-12247010-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-26T15:59:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-26T16:00:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/pexels-theshuttervision-12247010-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/pexels-theshuttervision-12247010-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":1707,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/26\\\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowell\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in\u00a0Monsanto v. Durnell, holding state law failure-to-warn claims were preempted by federal law.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here.]\u00a0 Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority\u00a0opinion.\u00a0 Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Jackson authored a dissent\u00a0in which Justice Gorsuch joined.\u00a0 Quick Summary\u00a0 I know some of you are\u00a0not\u00a0going to read the lengthy explanation included below.\u00a0\u00a0Here is\u00a0the\u00a0quick summary of the decision:\u00a0 Mr. Durnell sued Monsanto in state court claiming failure-to-warn because Roundup does not\u00a0contain\u00a0a cancer warning.\u00a0\u00a0Monsanto argued these claims were preempted by federal law.\u00a0... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2026-06-26T15:59:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-26T16:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1707,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/pexels-theshuttervision-12247010-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"tiffany.dowell","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowell","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowell","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73"},"headline":"US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA","datePublished":"2026-06-26T15:59:26+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-26T16:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/"},"wordCount":2902,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/pexels-theshuttervision-12247010-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["United States Supreme Court Decisions"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/","name":"US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/pexels-theshuttervision-12247010-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-26T15:59:26+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-26T16:00:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/pexels-theshuttervision-12247010-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/pexels-theshuttervision-12247010-scaled.jpg","width":1707,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/06\/26\/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"US Supreme Court: Failure-to-Warn Claims Preempted by FIFRA"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73","name":"tiffany.dowell","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowell\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16308","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2444"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16308"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16308\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16311,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16308\/revisions\/16311"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16309"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}