Monsanto Company, Petitioner v. John L. Durnell

John Durnell said he used Monsanto's Roundup for 20 years and that it caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Supreme Court said federal pesticide law blocks his state-law claim that Monsanto should have added a warning the EPA did not require.

The Court ruled for Monsanto and said federal law blocks this label-based warning suit, but the vote count and opinion lineup are not provided here.

The ruling makes it much harder for people to win damages in state court by arguing an EPA-approved pesticide label needed an extra warning. That directly affects Roundup users and other plaintiffs suing pesticide makers over label warnings.

Lower courts will now apply this decision to Durnell's case and similar Roundup warning suits. Plaintiffs, manufacturers, and the EPA will assess what claims or label disputes remain after the Court's rule.

The Court ruled for Monsanto. It said federal pesticide law blocks this state-law claim that Roundup needed a warning the EPA did not require.

People suing over EPA-approved pesticide labels are most affected. Manufacturers like Monsanto gain protection from state warning suits based on warnings the EPA did not require.

Lower courts must apply the decision to Durnell's case and similar cases. Future fights will likely focus on claims outside this label-warning theory or on EPA label actions.