Could the Supreme Court Weaken FIFRA?
April 9, 2025 For years now, glyphosate lawsuits have made their way through local and state court systems across the country. Now, the venue will shift to the national spotlight. But will the outcome end up being positive for agriculture?
By now, you’ve probably aware that on April 4, Bayer has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Durnell case. The company is arguing that a split among federal circuit courts in the Roundup personal injury litigation, on the cross-cutting question of whether federal law preempts state-based failure-to-warn claims, warrants review and resolution by the country’s top court.
“The stakes could not be higher as tens of thousands of Roundup cases are pending in state and federal courts, all of which rest on state-based failure-to-warn claims that should be preempted by federal law,” said Bayer in a press release announcing the petition. “The ongoing litigation also threatens Monsanto’s ability to continue to supply glyphosate-based products to farmers and other professional users.”
In its filing, Bayer is arguing that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was correct when it unanimously held in Schaffner that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempted the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim, because a jury verdict in his favor would impose labeling requirements different from what EPA requires in administering FIFRA.
But could the Supreme Court rule against FIFRA? At first glance, you would think not. However, several recent decisions by the high court have not favored federal oversight.
For example, in 2023, in the case of Sackett v. the EPA, the court curtailed the reach of the Clean Water Act of 1972 by narrowing the criteria by which certain wetlands and waterways may qualify as waters of the U.S., agreeing that the wetlands owned by an Idaho family should not fall under federal standards. More recently, in 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old precedent that required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. This means that courts will now have to make their own interpretations of ambiguous statutes rather than deferring to agency expertise.
In both these cases, federal jurisdiction was weakened. Could the Bayer glyphosate case be viewed by the court in a similar way when it comes to FIFRA labels vs. state ones?
Loading ...In its petition to the high court, Bayer cited the fact that the 9th and 11th Circuits and Missouri’s intermediate appellate court reached different conclusions on the preemption question. “These contrary holdings would open the door to 50 different state-required labels for glyphosate-containing herbicides, and any other products governed by FIFRA, in conflict with the clear intent and letter of the uniformity provision of this federal law,” said the company in its filing. “State and federal courts require guidance that only the U.S. Supreme Court can provide.”
I would hope the Supreme Court will favor FIFRA vs. state ones in its decision. However, given recent rulings against federal jurisdiction, I’m just a bit worried.
Subscribe Today For
