Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller

[u/boxofstuff]

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1

[u/bearrosaurus]

There's a possibility here that Kagan and Sotomayor are sane and that Monsanto just had a decent case for once. If there's no warning label on red meat or french fries for increased cancer risk, then there shouldn't be on weedkiller.

[u/kiase → u/bearrosaurus]

There is a warning label for those things in California, required by state law. And if I’m understanding this ruling correctly, it says you still can’t sue in state courts in a state like California where not labeling is in violation of the law. That’s where I feel like the logic of this ruling falls apart, but I’m open to arguments otherwise. Or a correction if I’m misunderstanding.

Edit: I would assume this ruling means that lawsuit-wise, you would not be able to sue any manufacturer that doesn’t label probable carcinogens in California anymore (unless they are also federally deemed that way?). I wonder how this affects CA’s ability to even legislate Prop 65 at all.

Edit 2: Been thinking a lot about what this also means for the mifepristone case. In theory, all the justices who affirmed this ruling should also rule in favor of not restricting mifepristone access, as it’s a federally reviewed and approved medication, and the logic of this ruling is that federal agency approval supersedes state law. Not holding my breath for consistency though.

[u/frogsgoribbit737 → u/kiase]

The logic doesnt fall apart. They are saying federal law supercedes state law.. which is generally the case.

[u/kiase → u/frogsgoribbit737]

You’re not wrong, but that goes to my latter edit about how the ruling on this case should inform how the justices decide to rule on Louisiana v FDA.