Exhibit 077

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, 609 U.S. ___

Exhibit 077 · Court opinion

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, 609 U.S. ___

FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell's state-law failure-to-warn claim because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup's label.

Held 7–2 (Kavanaugh, J., for the Court; Jackson, J., dissenting, joined by Gorsuch, J.) that FIFRA expressly preempts a state failure-to-warn claim that would require a cancer warning on Roundup's EPA-approved label. Reversed a Missouri verdict of more than $1 million. The opinion's account of EPA's cancer conclusions cites the Ninth Circuit's 2022 decision vacating EPA's 2020 glyphosate decision.

Source: Supreme Court of the United States
Date: 25 June 2026
Quoted from: Slip opinion, syllabus, p. 1
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1068_n7ip.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-09
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Cited by

Finding MED-5.4: Primary record In June 2026 the Supreme Court held 7–2 that federal pesticide law bars state claims that Roundup's label should have warned of cancer.
Finding MED-5.6: Primary record EPA's most recent cancer evaluation of glyphosate was vacated by a federal court in 2022, and EPA has not replaced it.