ELR Citation: 56 ELR 20085
No(s). 24-1068 (U.S. Jun 25, 2026)

The U.S. Supreme Court, 7-2, held that FIFRA expressly preempted a glyphosate pesticide user's state-law failure-to-warn claim because the claim would require the company that manufactures and distributes the pesticide to add a cancer warning to its products' label. The user sued in state court, arguing his use of the company's products had caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He brought a failure-to-warn claim that asserted the company should have included a cancer warning on the products' label. A jury agreed and awarded the user more than $1 million. The state appellate court affirmed, rejecting the company's argument that FIFRA preempted the failure-to-warn claim. The Supreme Court found that the claim would require the company to add a cancer warning to the label even though FIFRA required the company to use an EPA-approved label that did not have a cancer warning, and that because doing so would impose a labeling requirement that was "in addition to or different from" the label required under FIFRA, FIFRA expressly preempted the claim. It reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Jackson, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined.