Monsanto v. Durnell
Coverage of Monsanto v. Durnell in the Nexus archive.
- Does a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision affect how Minnesota can warn of pesticide health dangers?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto v. Durnell that states cannot impose pesticide warnings differing from federal standards, affecting Minnesota's ability to label glyphosate-based Roundup with additional health warnings. The 7-2 decision overturned a Missouri jury's award to a farmer who claimed Roundup caused his cancer, citing federal preemption of state strict liability doctrines.
- Opinion: Supreme Court ruling on Roundup points to a confusing difference between the law and science
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto in Roundup litigation, stating federal pesticide law preempts state failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has not mandated a cancer warning on the product label. The case, Monsanto v. Durnell, did not resolve whether Roundup causes cancer but focused on legal preemption under federal law.
- Court rules on gun rights, immigration, and pesticide labels
The Supreme Court issued rulings in four cases, including decisions on Temporary Protected Status, Hawaii's concealed-carry law, asylum eligibility, and pesticide labeling. The White House described the immigration-related rulings as a 'tremendous win' for the Trump administration. The court also denied a stay of execution for Dusty Ray Spencer, who was later executed in Florida.