The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case involving the weed killer Roundup. The dispute in Monsanto Company v. Durnell arises from a 2019 lawsuit brought by John Durnell, who claims he developed cancer after years of using Roundup. However, the weight of scientific evidence indicates that Roundup does not cause cancer. In this case, the court has an opportunity to reaffirm the rule of law and reinforce a fundamental principle of the U.S. government system: federal law is supreme when it conflicts with state law.
The case centers on whether a claim involving a state law’s failure to warn can override the regulatory determinations of the Environmental Protection Agency, which has repeatedly concluded, based on the best available science, that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, is not carcinogenic.
Recommended Stories
The plaintiff, Durnell, argues that additional warning labels were required under state law despite the EPA’s findings. On its face, this claim is specious. Under the principle of federal supremacy, state court juries cannot impose liability based on standards that conflict with federal law and regulations. To rule otherwise would create a fragmented and unpredictable legal environment.
Federal preemption exists precisely for this reason. Congress empowered the EPA, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, to evaluate pesticides and determine appropriate labeling. The EPA has determined that Roundup is not carcinogenic; therefore, additional warning labels cannot be required. There is no basis for a warning where no danger has been found.
If every state could second-guess federal regulatory determinations through tort litigation, the result would be legal chaos. Companies would face a patchwork of inconsistent requirements, with labels shaped not by scientific consensus but by the outcomes of individual lawsuits.
This case goes to the heart of how modern economies function. Scientific and technical questions, such as whether a chemical causes cancer, require expertise, data, and consistent standards. Agencies such as the EPA are designed to evaluate evidence and make informed decisions. Juries, by contrast, weigh emotional testimony and competing expert opinions in individual cases, often without the broader scientific context or an understanding of the wider economic implications.
The ramifications of this case extend far beyond agriculture. If state-level litigation can override federal regulatory determinations, it would set a precedent affecting pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and a wide range of industrial products. Companies would be forced to navigate not one national standard, but 50 competing ones. Innovation would slow, costs would rise, economic growth would suffer, and society would ultimately bear the burden.
Critics argue that preemption shields corporations from accountability. But this misunderstands the role of federal regulation. The EPA’s review process is rigorous and ongoing. If new evidence emerges, the agency has the authority to revise its conclusions and require new warnings. The proper avenue for change is through the regulatory process, not through random jury verdicts that may conflict with established science.
Moreover, allowing these claims to proceed undermines the predictability that businesses rely on when bringing products to market. Companies invest billions in research, development, and regulatory compliance. If those efforts can be undone by inconsistent state-level rulings, the incentive to innovate diminishes. This is especially concerning in agriculture, where products such as Roundup play a critical role in maintaining crop yields and controlling costs. The U.S. agricultural sector remains fundamental to the nation’s economic strength.
LONDON POLICE COMBATTING TERRORIST ‘THUGS FOR HIRE’ IN ‘HYBRID WAR FOUGHT BY PROXIES’
The Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of federal preemption in maintaining a coherent national framework.
This case presents an opportunity to reaffirm that principle. By ruling for the government, the Court would uphold the authority of federal regulators, ensure consistency in the law, and preserve the balance between innovation and safety.
James Rogan is a former U.S. foreign service officer who later worked for over 30 years in law and finance. Now he writes a daily note on markets, economics, politics and social issues.
