Home - Blank Rome LLP

Register to receive insights and analyses on breaking news and trends across varying industries.
<a class="link-primary mt-4" href="/subscribe">Subscribe</a>

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY

Wilmington, DE

Cincinnati, OH

Princeton, NJ

Los Angeles, CA

Houston, TX

Tampa, FL

Shanghai

West Palm Beach, FL

Pittsburgh, PA

Washington, D.C.

Chicago, IL

Orange County, CA

Dallas, TX

Boston, MA

On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 7-2 decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell.

core/paragraph

The court found that the uniformity clause of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, expressly preempts state law failure-to-warn claims that would require an herbicide manufacturer to add warnings beyond those approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The decision resolved a question that had divided lower courts for years, and delivered a decisive victory for manufacturers of federally regulated products.

Although Monsanto is an express preemption case under FIFRA, its reasoning also carries weighty implications for impossibility preemption of state law failure-to-warn and design-defect claims against generic drug manufacturers and their distributors under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA.

The court's analysis illuminates a structural truth that transcends any single statute. Congress has deployed different legislative tools across different product safety regimes like FIFRA or the FDCA.

But these tools are intended to accomplish the same end: a single, federally fixed label and product design that regulated parties cannot unilaterally alter, and that state tort law cannot override.

The Monsanto Decision: Express Preemption Under FIFRA's Uniformity Clause

John Durnell sued Monsanto in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, alleging that his use of Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide, for roughly 20 years caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

He asserted a failure-to-warn claim, contending that Monsanto should have included a cancer warning on Roundup's label. The jury awarded more than $1 million in damages, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting FIFRA preemption.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Writing for a seven-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that FIFRA's preemption clause, titled "Uniformity" by Congress in 1988, bars Durnell's claim.

Section 136v(b) 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."

The high court reasoned that state tort duties constitute state labeling requirements, citing its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, and its 2008 decision in Riegel v. Medtronic Inc.

Because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had repeatedly evaluated glyphosate, had concluded it is not likely to cause cancer, and had not required a cancer warning, the court found that Durnell's claim sought to impose a labeling requirement in addition to or different from what federal law required.

The court found Riegel dispositive, reasoning that just as U.S. Food and Drug Administration premarket approval of medical devices imposes federal requirements under the Medical Device Amendments' nearly identical preemption clause, so too does the EPA's registration and label-approval process impose federal requirements under FIFRA.

The majority observed that "many federal statutes contain similar labeling preemption clauses reflecting Congress' judgment that the ability to sell a product nationwide with a single label is important to an efficient nationwide market."

Critically, the court decided the case on express preemption grounds, and expressly declined to reach Monsanto's alternative implied-preemption argument: "Because we conclude that Durnell's failure-to-warn claim is expressly preempted, we need not consider Monsanto's implied preemption argument."

This limitation is important for practitioners seeking to deploy Monsanto in the pharmaceutical context. It is persuasive authority on structural principles, not controlling precedent on impossibility preemption.

The FDCA's Duty of Sameness: Impossibility Preemption Under Mensing and Bartlett

While FIFRA achieves label uniformity through an express preemption clause, the FDCA achieves functionally the same result through the federal duty of sameness enforced by the FDA's approval regime.

In PLIVA Inc. v. Mensing, the Supreme Court held in 2011 that federal law preempts state law failure-to-warn claims against generic drug manufacturers because those manufacturers are subject to a strict federal duty of sameness — meaning that a generic drug's label must be identical to the brand-name label.

Generic manufacturers may change their labels only to match an updated brand-name label or to follow an express FDA instruction. Any other unilateral change violates federal law.

Because state failure-to-warn law would require a label change that federal law forbids, the court found that it is "impossible to comply with both," and state law claims are preempted under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Two years later, in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, the court extended Mensing to design-defect claims. The court held that generic manufacturers cannot legally redesign a drug because the FDA requires a generic product to have the "same active ingredients, route of administration, dosage form, strength, and labeling as the brand-name drug."

The court rejected the argument that a generic manufacturer could simply stop selling the product, holding that the "stop-selling" rationale is "incompatible with our pre-emption jurisprudence."

Together, Mensing and Bartlett establish that where federal law requires a product-specific label and design, the regulated party cannot lawfully deviate, and state law claims premised on a duty to adopt a different label or design are preempted.

Different Tools, Same End: The Structural Analogy Between FIFRA and the FDCA

Monsanto is conventionally treated as occupying a separate doctrinal box from Mensing and Bartlett. The former express preemption, the latter implied preemption.

But this categorization obscures the deeper structural truth that in both regimes, Congress created a single, federally fixed product label and design that the regulated party cannot unilaterally alter, and that state tort law therefore cannot override.

Under FIFRA, Congress accomplished this through an explicit textual command. The uniformity clause bars states from imposing labeling requirements in addition to or different from federal requirements.

The EPA's comprehensive registration regime supports this prohibition by requiring a manufacturer to use the EPA-approved label or face civil and criminal penalties. As the Monsanto court emphasized, a manufacturer that unilaterally changed the label "would be flouting EPA's regulations and exposing itself to potentially severe federal penalties."

Under the FDCA, Congress used a different tool to reach the same destination.

Rather than an express preemption clause, Congress established a federal sameness regime that, combined with the FDA's exclusive authority over labeling and design approval, makes it legally impossible for a generic manufacturer to alter either its label or its product design without federal authorization.

The preemptive force arises not from statutory text expressly barring state requirements, but from the structural impossibility of dual compliance. The supremacy clause does the rest.

The practical result is identical in both contexts. An herbicide manufacturer cannot add a cancer warning that the EPA does not require, just as a generic drug manufacturer cannot add a strengthened warning that the FDA has not authorized, or redesign its product to differ from the brand-name reference.

In each case, the regulated party is locked into a federally approved label and product configuration, and a state tort judgment demanding deviation from that federal standard conflicts with federal law.

The majority's observation that "many federal statutes contain similar labeling preemption clauses reflecting Congress' judgment that the ability to sell a product nationwide with a single label is important to an efficient nationwide market" reveals the shared congressional design.

Whether Congress achieves label-lock through an express clause (in FIFRA or the MDA) or through a sameness-plus-agency-control regime (in the FDCA for generics), the federalism logic is the same: The supremacy clause protects the single federal label from state law disruption.

Where federal law establishes a comprehensive, agency-administered product labeling and design regime, state tort claims seeking to impose different or additional requirements are preempted — either by express statutory command or by constitutional necessity.

Public Policy Considerations: Why Uniformity Matters

The structural parallel between FIFRA and the FDCA is not merely a doctrinal curiosity, it reflects deliberate public policy choices made by Congress that serve consumers, industry and the integrity of the regulatory system.

Uniform Warnings for Identical Products

When two products are chemically identical, whether two containers of Roundup or two bottles of the same generic medication, they should carry identical, agency-approved warnings.

Allowing individual state juries to impose bespoke warning requirements on a product-by-product, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis would create the perverse result that identical products bear different labels depending on where, or against whom, a plaintiff happened to file a lawsuit.

Monsanto's uniformity framework rejects precisely this outcome.

A Predictable Nationwide Market

Both FIFRA and the FDCA contemplate a national marketplace in which manufacturers can distribute their products under a single, federally approved label.

Without preemption, manufacturers would face a patchwork of 50 states' conflicting, retroactively imposed tort duties. This would be an untenable compliance burden that would raise costs, chill innovation and ultimately harm consumers through reduced product availability.

Expert Agency Judgment Over Lay Jury Determinations

The EPA's evaluation of glyphosate and the FDA's approval of drug labeling reflect the considered judgment of expert agencies with statutory mandates to protect public health.

Both Monsanto and Mensing recognize that permitting individual juries, lacking the agencies' scientific expertise, comprehensive data access and risk-balancing mandate, to second-guess those determinations through tort verdicts undermines the very regulatory framework Congress established.

The proper avenue for challenging an agency's labeling determination is through the regulatory process itself — including citizen petitions — not through retroactive tort penalties.

Protection Against Retroactive Liability for Regulatory Compliance

In both the FIFRA and FDCA contexts, the manufacturer did exactly what federal law required by using the label the agency approved — or, for generics, the label federal law mandated it match.

Imposing tort liability for adhering to federal requirements would place regulated parties in an impossible position, and create perverse incentives to deviate from federal mandates — the very concern animating impossibility preemption.

For Generics, a Federal Requirement of Sameness

For generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, Monsanto reinforces an important compliance principle: Companies operating in highly regulated industries must be able to rely on the federal requirements that govern their products.

Compliance means maintaining the FDA-required sameness of the approved label and product. State law obligations requiring different warnings or designs would place generic manufacturers in conflict with the very regulatory standards they are required to follow.

Preemption protects the integrity of the regulatory framework by recognizing that adherence to federally mandated requirements should not itself become a basis for liability.

Monsanto v. Durnell is, at its doctrinal core, an express-preemption decision under FIFRA.

Practitioners should be candid about its limitations, as the Supreme Court expressly declined to reach implied preemption, and Monsanto does not directly control the FDCA impossibility analysis.

But the decision's reasoning and the principles it articulates powerfully reinforce the preemption framework that Mensing and Bartlett established — and therefore can be used to further support impossibility preemption.

"Monsanto Ruling Bolsters Generic Drug Labeling Preemption," by Terry M. Henry, Ann E. Querns, and Melanie Leney* was published in <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/2505235">Law360</a> on July 30, 2026.

Monsanto Ruling Bolsters Generic Drug Labeling Preemption

Offices

Stay Connected

Slide Menu

Slide Search

Monsanto Ruling Bolsters Generic Drug Labeling Preemption

Offices

Stay Connected