At issue is whether people can sue pesticide-makers such as Monsanto for failing to warn consumers of alleged health harms stemming from their products.
The company asked the court to consider the issue, appealing a Missouri verdict that awarded a man named John Durnell $1.25 million as a result of his failure-to-warn claim over Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer.
The impacts could be far-reaching and either enable or stifle lawsuits around the country.
The justices did not give a clear indication of which way they would rule, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson among the justices who asked tough questions of Monsanto.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, appeared skeptical of Durnell.
Pesticide critics, including environmental activists and supporters of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, rallied outside the court on Monday, saying people should be able to hold companies accountable.
In court, Monsanto argued that some state-level failure-to-warn claims against pesticide companies should not be allowed to proceed because they are preempted by the nation’s main pesticide law.
Gorsuch asked Monsanto Lawyer Paul Clement about cases where some companies have added cancer warnings to their labels even if they’re not required to by the EPA.
“If it all does boil down to the impossibility idea — that it’s hard to add these labels without EPA’s permission — what do we do about the fact that, at least as briefs before us suggest, registrants have added cancer warnings to their labels without EPA permission or objection?” Gorsuch asked.
Durnell’s lawyer argued that under FIFRA, companies are also prohibited from selling pesticides whose labels are misleading or inadequate, and that the EPA does not have the authority to prevent the courts from holding companies liable under the law.
“I believe that the express preemption clause is requiring uniformity in law: the law of Missouri and the law of the United States have to be the same,” said Durnell’s lawyer Ashley Keller.
Kavanaugh challenged him, asking, “The label subjects you to liability in one state and does not subject you to liability in the other state, is that uniformity?”
The issue could separately come to a head this week in Congress, where the House could pass its version of the farm bill.
Read more at TheHill.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment