On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision involving glyphosate and the regulation of pesticide labels. In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Court ruled 7–2 that federal pesticide law preempts certain state failure-to-warn claims when those claims would effectively require a pesticide manufacturer to provide a warning that is not required under the product’s EPA-approved label.

The case centered on Roundup and whether Monsanto could be held liable under state law for failing to warn that glyphosate could cause cancer. The EPA has not required a cancer warning on glyphosate products, and the Court concluded that states cannot use their laws to impose labeling requirements that conflict with federal requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The decision provides greater clarity and consistency for pesticide regulation. Golf course superintendents rely on EPA-approved pesticide labels to understand how products can be legally and safely used. A system in which individual states could effectively impose different warnings or labeling requirements through litigation could create a complicated patchwork for manufacturers and pesticide users.

The ruling does not change the requirement that pesticide users follow the label. Instead, it reinforces EPA’s central role in evaluating pesticide risks and establishing labeling requirements under FIFRA.

GCSAA will continue monitoring developments involving glyphosate, FIFRA and pesticide regulation and advocating for a science-based, predictable regulatory system that protects both the environment and access to important tools used to manage golf courses.