politics
Supreme Court Limits State Warning Rules for Federally Regulated Products
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot impose labeling requirements when federal standards already exist under FIFRA. The decision affects thousands of lawsuits against companies that manufacture products regulated at the national level.
New York PostAudio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
Developing·Limited corroboration so far. This page will refresh as more sources emerge.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot create their own warning standards for products when federal regulators have already acted under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. The case involved a claim that Roundup caused cancer in a Missouri resident and that the manufacturer owed damages for failing to include a state-required warning.
Federal Environmental Protection Agency testing of glyphosate, the product's active ingredient, found no such link and did not mandate a warning.
Background on the Ruling FIFRA established a single national labeling system to prevent conflicting state requirements. The decision blocks similar state-court actions against Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2019, and against other companies facing comparable claims.
The ruling also limits the ability of plaintiffs to rely on studies funded by litigation interests to support damage awards in cases involving federally regulated substances.
