Energy & Environment

Supreme Court to hear case that could limit pesticide liability — and divide MAHA from Trump

Comments:

by Rachel Frazin - 04/26/26 12:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Rachel Frazin - 04/26/26 12:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

NOW PLAYING

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could curtail anti-pesticide lawsuits — an issue that pits the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement against the Trump administration.

The high court agreed to take up the case earlier this year after a request from Monsanto, maker of the frequently litigated weedkiller Roundup.

Monsanto had asked the court to overturn the results of a lawsuit that forced it to pay $1.25 million to John Durnell, who alleged that he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma because of his exposure to Roundup.

Durnell specifically accused the company of failing to warn of potential health implications of Roundup exposure; the case and others like it center around this failure-to-warn claim.

“This case will determine whether people who are harmed by pesticides can have access to courts to seek redress,” said Patti Goldman, a senior attorney at Earthjustice.

“It is one of the critical ways that people can hold pesticide companies accountable, and then that creates incentives for them to change their products to be safer or to take harmful pesticides off the market,” Goldman added.

However, many in the agriculture and pesticide industries argue that potential legal action threatens their access to chemicals that they need to protect their crops.

“It really puts a risk on the availability of not just glyphosate moving forward, but really all products,” Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance, told reporters Friday.

Ahead of Monday’s arguments, both MAHA movement figures and left-wing environmental advocates, among others, are slated to rally together outside the court, saying they want more accountability for the chemical industry. They’ll be joined by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).

While President Trump has pledged to “Make America Healthy Again” and put MAHA leader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. into the key role of Health and Human Service secretary, his administration has sometimes been at odds with the movement on chemicals, including in this particular case.

The Justice Department has filed briefs agreeing with Monsanto and is expected to argue in support of the company on Monday.

“People are very disappointed in the Trump administration, especially the White House,” said David Murphy, who was the finance director of Kennedy’s presidential campaign and is also the founder of advocacy group United We Eat.

“They’ve unfortunately made this calculation, and they’re gonna have to live with it. It’ll be one of many things that costs them the midterms this year,” Murphy said.

A recent poll from Politico found that among self-identified MAHA followers, limiting pesticide use is a top issue, with 50 percent describing it as a core principle of the movement.

In court filings, Monsanto has argued that Durnell’s state-level failure-to-warn claim cannot stand under the nation’s pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

It cites language in the law barring states like Durnell’s Missouri from imposing “requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from” those set by the EPA.

Monsanto argues that because the EPA has not linked glyphosate to cancer, the agency “thus requires Monsanto to use product labels that do not warn of a supposed link between glyphosate and cancer.”

It has asked the Supreme Court to say that failure-to-warn claims like Durnell’s are therefore barred by federal law.

Durnell, meanwhile, argues that this language does not preclude court challenges.

His brief cites a portion of the law that says that approval of a pesticide and its label should not “be construed as a defense” against violating FIFRA, which also requires adequate health warnings.

“Even if federal law prevented Monsanto from adding a cancer warning to Roundup’s EPA-approved labels, FIFRA would still prohibit Monsanto from distributing or selling Roundup if the judiciary finds its labels misleading or inadequate,” the brief states.

In February, Monsanto and plaintiffs suing it over Roundup announced a $7.25 billion settlement agreement to cover both current and future claims for people who were exposed to Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

However, the company said at the time that the Supreme Court case is still “critical to resolving substantial outstanding damage awards subject to pending appeals, which are not covered by the settlement.”

A Supreme Court ruling could also apply to other pesticid