Jury Nullification: Can States Defy Federal Law on Roundup?

The Supreme Court is set to decide if state juries possess the power to nullify federal law, specifically concerning the pesticide glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup. This pivotal case, Monsanto v. Durnell, arises from numerous lawsuits filed in state courts alleging that Monsanto's product caused cancer. These claims persist despite the Environmental Protection Agency's decades-long evaluation concluding glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015, which fueled the wave of lawsuits under state tort law. While Bayer, Monsanto's owner, has won many of these cases, plaintiffs have secured over $4 billion in damages. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) explicitly states that states cannot enact labeling requirements that differ from EPA mandates, a measure established to prevent a confusing patchwork of state regulations.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are attempting to circumvent this federal preemption. The Durnell case, where a plaintiff was awarded $1.25 million, centers on Monsanto's argument that the claim is preempted by federal law. They contend that a state-mandated cancer warning, unsupported by the EPA, would constitute illegal misbranding. Plaintiffs, however, argue that only federal law itself, not regulatory actions taken under it, can preempt state claims.

Monsanto highlights that the jury's finding in Durnell's favor implicitly required the jury to conclude that state law demanded a warning the EPA deemed unnecessary. The company points to the Riegel v. Medtronic precedent, where similar preemption language barred state tort claims for FDA-approved medical devices. Plaintiffs have introduced a novel argument, referencing the Loper Bright precedent, suggesting that federal preemption of state torts conflicts with the Supreme Court's stance against automatic deference to regulatory agencies.