Monsanto v. Durnell: What's at Stake for American Farmers?

On April 27, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell (No. 24-1068), a case that could reshape the future of agriculture in the United States.  

At its core, the case centers on whether federal law preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the Environmental Protection Agency has not required the warning at issue. 

For America’s farmers, the stakes are high. They rely on clear, consistent, science-based rules to plan ahead, protect yields, and keep food affordable. And modern crop protection tools, such as glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in U.S. agriculture, play a critical role in making that possible. 

During a recent roundtable, Missouri farmer Blake Hurst explained the importance of access to these tools, saying, “We depend on the crop protection tools every single day that we’re raising a crop. They help us manage weeds, pests, [and] diseases. We lose… somewhere up to 40% of our potential yield from depredations from weeds, from pests, from bugs. Farmers depend on these products in order to grow the food, the fuel, and the fiber that everyone depends on.” 

While the Court’s review is an important step toward greater clarity, farmers are already facing falling commodity prices and tightening margins, making certainty more important than ever. That’s why, regardless of how the Court rules, the Modern Ag Alliance (MAA) continues to advocate for solutions that provide long-term certainty so that the tools farmers depend on are not litigated or regulated away. 

What is the Monsanto v. Durnell case about, why does it matter for farmers?  

In Monsanto Company v. Durnell (No. 24-1068), the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has not required the health and safety warning. More simply, the question is whether states and courts can impose labeling requirements, including cancer warnings like California’s Prop 65, that conflict with the EPA’s science-based findings on pesticide labeling.  

FIFRA is the federal law that governs how pesticides are reviewed, labeled, and used in the United States. Under this system, the EPA serves as the national authority on pesticide safety and labeling, relying on extensive scientific review. 

The Trump administration has also weighed in, with the U.S. Solicitor General urging the Court to side with Monsanto and affirm the EPA’s authority over pesticide labeling decisions. 

For farmers, consistent science-based standards are critical for making long-term planning decisions, managing pests, and adopting important conservation practices such as no-till farming. When the rules are unclear or constantly shifting, it becomes much harder to plan, manage risk, and stay productive—including decisions about the tools farmers rely on, such as glyphosate. 

Iowa farmer Mark Jackson discussed the safety of these tools, saying, “We don’t use chemicals just willy-nilly. They have been approved by the EPA, the FDA, the USDA. You might say all the A’s in the government have gone through the pipelines to allow these chemicals to be used, and then they are reviewed at regular intervals.” 

Glyphosate is widely used in American agriculture because it helps farmers control weeds, protect yields, and support conservation practices like cover crops and no-till. When access to tools like this becomes less certain, it adds pressure to already tight margins and makes it more difficult for farmers to plan for the future. 

Blake Hurst, a corn and soy farmer from Missouri, underscored these pressures, saying, “We’re already operating in a tough environment. Costs are up. Our supply chains have been disrupted […] Losing access to crop protection chemicals like glyphosate would be a terrible blow, a disastrous blow for farmers as we’re facing these tough times. […] Because if we lose access to one of the most widely used and affordable crop protection tools, our costs will go up and that will eventually show up on food prices and in grocery store shelves.”  

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell (No. 24-1068) on April 27, 2026, and a decision is expected as early as this June. 

What are other ag groups saying about Monsanto v. Durnell? 

Twelve Modern Ag Alliance partners signed onto an amici brief in favor of the petitioner: 

Here is what they said: 

“If state law says that glyphosate products must carry carcinogen warnings and federal law says that they must not, it will become impossible to sell those products. The only option will be to discontinue them. That will harm the businesses that depend on a tool that EPA has found safe and effective for decades and across administrations. It will also harm the public, which benefits from the food security glyphosate products provide, among other benefits.” 
—Brief of Agricultural Retailers Association and National Agricultural Aviation Association 

“Herbicides like glyphosate have been proven safe for use in agriculture time and again. And they are responsible for greatly increasing the productivity and safety of American farms over the past half-century.”  
—Brief of Farm Bureau Organizations of California, Florida, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, the Indiana Agricultural Law Foundation, and the North Carolina Chamber Legal Institute 

“America’s agricultural industry could not operate without glyphosate.” 
—Cert-stage brief of the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Cherry Marketing Institute, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, International Fresh Produce Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council of America, National Sorghum Producers, North American Blueberry Council, and Western Growers. 

What Does Science Say About Glyphosate Safety?  

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has consistently found that glyphosate, the herbicide at the center of Monsanto v. Durnell, is not a carcinogen and is safe to use as directed. That finding is supported by more than 1,500 studies and regulatory bodies around the globe. The European Union, widely regarded as among the most stringent regulatory authorities in the world, reapproved glyphosate as recently as 2023. 

If Glyphosate is Safe, Why Are There So Many Lawsuits?  

The litigation industry latched onto a discredited report by IARC, a sub-agency of the World Health Organization, that placed glyphosate in the same risk category as hot beverages, working the night shift, and being a hairdresser. That conclusion is inconsistent with findings from major regulatory bodies worldwide, including the U.S. EPA, which has consistently found glyphosate safe for use as directed.  

Since the report’s release, trial lawyers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising to recruit plaintiffs. The high volume of lawsuits reflects the litigation 

industry’s successful recruitment efforts, not the product’s safety record.  

What is the Modern Ag Alliance Doing to Protect Farmers?  

MAA, a coalition of more than 115 agricultural organizations, advocates to protect farmers’ continued access to essential crop protection tools. 

MAA supports state and federal efforts that reinforce the EPA’s role as the national authority on pesticide labeling and ensure farmers have clear, science-based rules they can rely on. 

This includes federal– and state-level legislation that can help prevent a patchwork of conflicting requirements and provide farmers with the certainty they need, regardless of how the Court rules.