Glyphosate on Trial: Preemption Questions and The Circuit Split Over State Law Failure-to-Warn Claims in Roundup Litigation

Note By: Thomas K. Fricker

In this Note, Thomas K. Fricker examines the intense legal conflicts and federal circuit split surrounding state-law failure-to-warn claims in Roundup litigation. Fricker details how the Third Circuit in Schaffner v. Monsanto found express preemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by utilizing the EPA's Preapproval Regulation as the federal comparator. He contrasts this with rulings from the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, which applied the parallel requirements test to hold that state common-law warning duties mirror FIFRA’s broader statutory misbranding prohibition. He demonstrates that implied preemption arguments also fail under the "clear evidence" standard because EPA label registrations serve only as prima facie evidence rather than binding rules carrying the force of law. Ultimately, he advocates that the Supreme Court affirm the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits to help solve the unjust preemption of state health warnings and protect workers exposed to glyphosate.