Hi John,
In a 7-2 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell ([link removed]) , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of protecting pesticide corporations and stripped away the legal rights of cancer patients, Parkinson's sufferers, and countless others harmed by toxic pesticides.
The SiX Food, Agriculture, & Rural Economies program has put together resources for state legislators and advocates to understand what the recent SCOTUS decision in Monsanto v. Durnell means for public health and pesticide regulation.
For more information or assistance connecting with state-level advocates in response to this case, please contact Emma Newton at
[email protected] (mailto:
[email protected]?subject=Monsanto%20Q&body=) .
Overview on Monsanto Ruling
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto v. Durnell in favor of Monsanto, which was seeking legal liability immunity from lawsuits filed by farmers and community members who have been harmed by Monsanto’s products, including the pesticide and known carcinogen Glyphosate-based RoundUp. With this decision, the Supreme Court has declared that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where EPA has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval. For states and communities, this means that those suffering from cancer, Parkinson’s and other illnesses have no legal recourse to sue manufacturers like Monsanto for the harms caused by their products and that state legislators’ hands are tied in supporting and protecting communities that are harmed.
Statement from EJ Juárez, State Innovation Exchange Executive Director
”Today's Supreme Court ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell is a devastating blow to farmers, rural communities, and every American who deserves to know the truth about the chemicals in their food and water. By shielding Monsanto from accountability, the Court has overturned their own precedent and stripped away the legal rights of cancer patients, Parkinson's sufferers, and countless others harmed by toxic pesticides, and undoing billions of dollars in settlements awarded by juries to cancer patients in the process. The Court has also tied the hands of state legislators who have fought tirelessly to protect their communities. While this decision will have far-reaching repercussions, it is not the end of our fight. We will continue standing with state leaders to pursue every available path to protect community health and hold corporate chemical interests accountable.”
Background
Exposure to agricultural chemicals, including common herbicides like glyphosate and paraquat, has been associated with elevated risks of multiple cancers ([link removed]) , including leukemia, non‑Hodgkin lymphoma, bladder, colon, lung, pancreatic, prostate, and kidney cancer.
Nationwide, over 177,000 lawsuits have been filed by farmers and rural community members against Bayer (which bought Monsanto in 2018), claiming the company has suppressed research linking its product RoundUp to cancer. Bayer has set aside over $16 billion to fight these cases ([link removed]) , which have seen juries award millions of dollars in damages to plaintiffs. Syngenta, another chemical company, is also in the midst of a nearly $200 million legal settlement ([link removed]) with thousands of paraquat users with Parkinson’s disease. Monsanto v. Durnell was preceded by these successful lawsuits and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto. Additionally, a 2005 Supreme Court decision, in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, upheld the right of those harmed by a pesticide to sue for damages.
With this decision, the Supreme Court has overturned Bates v. Dow Agrosciences precedent, siding with chemical corporations over the health of communities.
The chemical industry pursued a multi-pronged strategy, including state-level bills and federal action in the Farm Bill and with Monsanto v. Durnell at the Supreme Court. In 2026, state-level bills giving immunity to chemical companies for the harms caused by their products proliferated across the country for the third year in a row, backed by Bayer and the pesticide industry. Also called the “Bayer bill,” “failure to warn,” or “cancer gag act,” this bill is a classic preemption bill, to prohibit legal action against pesticide companies for harms caused by their products. State legislators from Iowa to Florida have successfully fought off these bills, protecting the rights of their constituents to pursue legal remedies.
However, with the Supreme Court granting immunity to Bayer and over 50,000 chemicals produced by chemical companies and used regularly in our agriculture system, communities and state legislators in all 50 states no longer have legal recourse for health harms. But the fight is far from over. Below are some resources for state legislators to support them protecting their constituents from the health harms caused by toxic chemicals in our food system.
Resources for State Legislators:
* SiX’s Bayer Bill Resource Toolkit ([link removed])
* More information about State Level Pesticide Immunity Bills ([link removed])
* Beyond Pesticides Backgrounder on Monsanto v. Durnell ([link removed])
If you are a state legislator interested in learning more about pesticide immunity, regulation of pesticides, or public health impacts of agrochemicals or would like to support your community in pushing back please reach out to Emma Newton at
[email protected] (mailto:
[email protected]?subject=Monsanto%20Q&body=) .
In Solidarity,
SiX’s Food, Agriculture, & Rural Economies Team
P.S: Was this email forwarded to you? Don’t miss the next one. Sign up here ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
Copyright © 2025 State Innovation Exchange, All rights reserved.
View email in browser ([link removed])
The State Innovation Exchange . 1360 Regent Street, PMB 257 . Madison, WI 53715 . USA
update your preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe ([link removed])
