# Oral Argument: Monsanto Co. v. Durnell

Page: https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/oral-argument-monsanto-co-v-durnell
Text version: https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/oral-argument-monsanto-co-v-durnell.md
Podcast: [The High Court Report](https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353)
Published: 2026-04-27T21:00:00+00:00
Episode link: https://thehighcourtreport.com//oral-argument-monsanto-co-v-durnell
Audio file: https://episodes.captivate.fm/episode/6cd207c7-0623-44f6-bcd8-ba628b52b02b.mp3
Processing state: not_requested
JSON: https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/the-high-court-report-7304353/episodes/oral-argument-monsanto-co-v-durnell
Duration seconds: 4569

## Resource

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…

## Actions

- request_transcript: `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.
- read_markdown: `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.

A page view does not enqueue transcription. Agents should invoke `request_transcript` explicitly when they need this episode processed.

## Transcript

Full transcripts are not published on public pages unless there is a clear rights basis.