Opposition to the Solicitor General In Durnell Case

The Respondent in the matter of Monsanto v. John L. Durnell, filed a supplemental opposition brief to the Solicitor General. The supplemental brief was filed on December 16, 2025, on behalf of respondent John L. Durnell. It argues that the Supreme Court should deny Monsanto’s petition for a writ of certiorari regarding whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims.

Key Arguments Against Supreme Court Review

No Genuine Circuit Conflict: The brief contends there is no actual "split" between federal courts. It argues the Third Circuit’s decision in Schaffner v. Monsanto rested on a different legal record and did not address specific issues raised in the Durnell case, such as the duty to seek label changes after discovering new adverse health data.

Independent Grounds for the Verdict: The respondent highlights that the jury's verdict stands on evidence unrelated to EPA-approved labels, including Monsanto’s misleading advertising and its failure to warn about carcinogenic components in the formulated Roundup product (like ethylene oxide and POEA).

Political "Ping-Pong" in Government Positions: The brief criticizes the U.S. government for reversing its legal stance on preemption solely due to a "change in Administration". It argues the government’s current pro-preemption view contradicts more persuasive arguments it made only three years ago in Monsanto v. Hardeman.

Scientific Misrepresentations: A significant new development cited is the December 2025 retraction of a major study used by the EPA to conclude glyphosate was safe. The brief argues that Monsanto’s undisclosed involvement in that study undermined the academic integrity of the very assessments the company now claims should block state lawsuits.

Conclusion

The brief concludes that this case is an "unsuitable vehicle" for deciding broader preemption questions. The Supreme Court has yet to decide if it will take the case.