Episode
Oral Argument: Monsanto Co. v. Durnell
- Podcast
- The High Court Report
- Published
- Apr 27, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 4569
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/the-high-court-report-7304353/episodes/oral-argument-monsanto-co-v-durnell/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/oral-argument-monsanto-co-v-durnell.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
Monsanto Co. v. Durnell | Case No. 24-1068 | Docket Link: Here Oral Advocates: Petitioner (Monsanto): Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy Respondent (Durnell): Ashley C. Keller of Keller Postman Amicus Curiae (United States): Sarah M. Harris of the Department of Justice Question Presented: Whether FIFRA preempts a state failure-to-warn claim when EPA approved the pesticide label without requiring a cancer warning. Overview: John Durnell sprayed Roundup for over two decades before a cancer diagnosis. EPA approved Roundup's label with no cancer warning for fifty years. The Court must decide whether that federal approval shields Monsanto from a $1.25 million Missouri jury verdict. Posture: Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed jury verdict; Missouri Supreme Court denied transfer; cert granted. Main Arguments: • Monsanto (Petitioner): (1) EPA's pesticide-specific registration imposes binding federal labeling requirements that preempt conflicting state tort duties; (2) Missouri's failure-to-warn standard diverges from FIFRA's mandatory cost-benefit analysis; (3) Federal law forbade unilateral label changes, making simultaneous compliance with state and federal law impossible. • Durnell (Respondent): (1) FIFRA delegates to courts and juries — not EPA — the final word on whether a label violates the misbranding prohibition; (2) Missouri law mirrors FIFRA's misbranding standards and runs parallel, not in conflict; (3) Monsanto could add a cancer warning unilaterally, as Bayer proved in 2012 with a different pesticide. Implications: A Monsanto victory extinguishes over 100,000 Roundup cancer lawsuits nationwide and establishes that EPA registration conclusively insulates pesticide manufacturers from state tort liability — a rule that extends to every federally registered pesti…