FAQ: U.S. Supreme Court Review of the Durnell Case in Roundup™ Litigation

28 January 2026, US: The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to review the Durnell case marks a significant development in ongoing Roundup™ litigation in the United States. At the center of the case is a legal question over whether federal pesticide regulations override state-level failure-to-warn claims, an issue that has led to differing rulings across U.S. courts. As the case moves forward, it carries implications for regulatory consistency, the role of scientific authorities, and the future handling of pesticide-related litigation. The following FAQs explain the key aspects of the case and why it matters to the agriculture sector.

1. What is the Durnell case?

The Durnell case is a lawsuit filed in Missouri alleging that Roundup™, a glyphosate-based herbicide, failed to provide adequate warnings about potential health risks. The case is part of broader Roundup™ litigation faced by Monsanto, a Bayer subsidiary, in the United States.

2. Why is the U.S. Supreme Court reviewing this case?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the Durnell case to address differing interpretations among federal courts on whether federal pesticide law overrides state-level failure-to-warn claims. This legal question, known as federal preemption, has resulted in conflicting rulings across U.S. courts.

3. What is federal preemption and why does it matter here?

Federal preemption refers to situations where federal law takes priority over state law. In this case, the issue is whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) prevents states from imposing labeling requirements that differ from those approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

4. How does the EPA factor into the Roundup™ litigation?

The EPA regulates pesticide safety and labeling in the United States. It has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans and has approved Roundup™ labels without cancer warnings. The case raises the question of whether jury verdicts can override these regulatory determinations.

5. What did lower courts decide in the Durnell case?

In October 2023, a Missouri jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff on one failure-to-warn claim and awarded USD 1.25 million in damages. The jury rejected other claims and did not award punitive damages. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in February 2025, and the Missouri Supreme Court later declined to review the case.

6. Why is there a split among U.S. courts?

Some federal courts, including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, have ruled that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims. Other courts, including the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and Missouri’s intermediate appellate court, have reached different conclusions. This inconsistency prompted the Supreme Court to take up the case.

7. What role did the U.S. Solicitor General play?

Before agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court requested the views of the U.S. Solicitor General. In a brief submitted in December 2025, the Solicitor General supported Supreme Court review, stating that the case raises significant questions about the authority of federal regulators versus state courts.

8. What could a Supreme Court ruling mean for Bayer and Monsanto?

A favorable ruling could help Bayer contain Roundup™ litigation by clarifying that companies complying with EPA-approved labeling requirements cannot be held liable under conflicting state laws. An unfavorable ruling could allow similar lawsuits to continue across multiple states.

9. How could this decision affect farmers?

The outcome may influence regulatory clarity around pesticide labeling and availability. Industry stakeholders argue that consistent federal standards help ensure farmers continue to access crop protection tools approved by regulators.

10. Does this case change the scientific position on glyphosate?

No. The Supreme Court’s review focuses on legal and regulatory interpretation, not on reassessing scientific findings. Regulatory authorities worldwide, including the EPA, have maintained that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely when applied as directed.

11. When is a decision expected?

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision during its 2026 term, which concludes in June 2026.

12. Why is this case important beyond Roundup™?

The ruling could set a precedent for how federal regulatory approvals interact with state-level lawsuits, potentially affecting other crop protection products and regulated agricultural inputs in the future.

Also Read: ISARC Director Awarded with Uttar Pradesh’s Highest Civilian Award

Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com