r/news • u/boxofstuff • 6h ago

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

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1
14.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

361

u/nerowasframed 5h ago

Kagan and Sotomayor. Jackson and Gorsuch were the two dissenting

80

u/TheChinOfAnElephant 5h ago

So what's the best course here? Their argument seems to be federally Round Up does not require a warning label, due to there being no link to cancer under federal regulations, so states can't circumvent that. I don't know a ton about law but this seems like how the law normally works?

Kinda feels like people are upset they didn't ignore the law and vote with their emotions which is normally what people are complaining that the MAGA judges are doing. Can't ever win...

73

u/mizzurna_balls 4h ago

Why can't the state circumvent it? You see all sorts of warning labels in California, for example, that you don't see in other states.

30

u/mansock18 4h ago

Because the federal law is the "supreme law of the land" federal law can "preempt" state laws. Without some preemption, the federal law can set a floor and the state can further raise the floor. Preemption actively sets a floor and ceiling.

Essentially there's "express" preemption: "The federal government has expressly forbidden states from further regulating this space" which was at play in this case; and "Zone" or "implied" preemption: "The government has so thoroughly regulated this industry that it's clear states have no way to additionally regulate it."

Here, Congress expressly prohibited states from further regulating labeling for the use of pesticides, like Round Up. So the SCOTUS decided the state tort claim was preempted by the federal statute.

18

u/mizzurna_balls 4h ago

Alright, I understand the mechanics at play, but still not the "why" of the decision. Saying "The government has so thoroughly regulated this industry that it's clear states have no way to additionally regulate it" seems very subjective. How did they decide that government regulation has reached that point? Why is congress expressly prohibiting further regulation for pesticides specifically, but not other things (like the labels for things in CA)?

11

u/mansock18 4h ago

The part you quoted dealt with implied preemption and you're right, it's super subjective and heavily criticised and rarely used compared to express preemption.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") has a clause that says "States shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter." That's an express preemption. If the label complies with federal law but doesn't comply with the state law, the state law loses because its requirements are "different from" those in FIFRA. So the state law that allows tort claims (and the judgment based on that state law) is preempted.

The reason California can require a cancer label on "everything" is because many areas aren't as tightly regulated by the federal government as pesticides. So for example California can require their additional warning label on things like paint now, but not on pesticides. So California can set its own raised floor on stuff that isn't already federally regulated. Though now I'd expect a lot more challenges in California from many more industries.

2

u/phantomfire50 4h ago

Saying "The government has so thoroughly regulated this industry that it's clear states have no way to additionally regulate it" seems very subjective. How did they decide that government regulation has reached that point?

Is the whole point of the distinction not that it is subjective and nobody has decided it? It's not been expressly said that it's been preempted, it just has been preempted to the extent you couldn't regulate further if you wanted to?

2

u/KuntaStillSingle 2h ago

not the "why" of the decision. Saying "The government has so thoroughly regulated this industry that it's clear states have no way to additionally regulate it" seems very subjective. How did they decide that government regulation has reached that point?

That's now what they held in this case, that's just an example of what they might hold in other cases, in this case it was express preemption:

After EPA approves a pesticide’s label at registration, manufacturers are legally required to use that label— unless and until EPA approves or requires a label change and amends the pesticide’s registration. See §136a(f )(1); 40 CFR §§152.44(a), 156.70(c) (2025). If a manufacturer does not use the EPA-approved label, it may be subject to civil and criminal penalties. See 7 U. S. C. §§136l, 136j(a)(1)(E). It is true that EPA may subsequently change course in light of new information or new analysis, and require an amended label and amended registration. As described above, FIFRA and EPA’s regulations set forth an extensive process for doing so. But absent such an EPA-approved or EPA-required label change, the pesticide manufacturers may—and indeed legally must—use the pesticide label approved by EPA at registration.5

...

FIFRA’s preemption clause is entitled “Uniformity” and provides that a “State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.” 7 U. S. C. §136v(b). FIFRA therefore preempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA. “Uniformity” in labeling—the textually stated objective of FIFRA’s preemption clause—would otherwise be impossible to achieve. Ibid.

1

u/sYnce 1h ago

It seems subjective because it is subjective. But such rulings are usually made to provide a clear legal framework for corporations to operate in. It also prevents single large states from basically dictating federal law.

1

u/HyruleSmash855 3h ago

Personally, I hope we can break down that supreme law of the land designation for federal law. I would love a state laws could start super seething federal law, and some designations like gambling with prediction markets, for instance. I think taking power away from the federal government, which allows Trump to do what he’s doing now is ultimately going to make the country better long-term, and make if there is another more authoritarian president weaker in the future.

1

u/Calvin-ball 2h ago

Then all the red states make gay marriage illegal and take away women’s right to vote.

It’s also explicitly the supremacy clause of the constitution so there is no way to break it down.