Across the country, lawmakers and industry groups are pushing to make it harder to sue pesticide manufacturers when their products fail to adequately warn consumers about risks or how to protect themselves when using these chemicals. That debate between consumers and industry has now found its way to the Supreme Court. On April 27, the Court will hear oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell. The case will likely be decided on technical legal grounds that won’t bear directly on the scientific questions at stake. Still, if the Court sides with Monsanto, producer of the weed killer Roundup, this could accelerate, and even cement, the political trend of shielding pesticide companies from liability. At stake is whether Americans can bring state “failure-to-warn” claims when federally registered products fail to disclose risks. What the Court decides could shape future accountability fights well beyond pesticides. John Durnell, the plaintiff from Missouri, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of using Roundup without gloves or a mask. Some studies have linked repeated exposure to glyphosate, Roundup’s main ingredient, to this type of cancer. Like many others, he later sued Monsanto, arguing that the company failed to warn about cancer risks and proper protective measures. Notably, the company removed glyphosate from its U.S. residential Roundup products in 2023. The Missouri jury found Monsanto liable for failure-to-warn, though not for defective design or negligence. Monsanto is now appealing this decision, arguing that federal law shields it from liability. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the registration, labeling, and distribution of pesticides in the U.S. Monsanto argues that because EPA approved Roundup, it cannot be held liable for failure-to-warn under state law. The Supreme Court will not decide whether glyphosate causes cancer or whether Monsanto failed to warn appropriately. Instead, it will decide whether a state failure-to-warn civil claim can proceed when the EPA has approved the product label. Monsanto may have the stronger legal argument because FIFRA states that a state cannot impose labeling or packaging requirements that differ from federal requirements. However, the question is not entirely settled. In 2004, in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, the Supreme Court held that not all failure-to-warn claims are automatically pre-empted under FIFRA. State rules that impose labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal law are pre-empted. State claims that mirror FIFRA standards are not. A related question is whether a jury verdict in favor of a failure-to-warn claim creates a new labeling requirement. The plaintiff will argue that it does not; the verdict simply holds a company accountable after harm occurs. Monsanto, however, will argue that such a verdict would effectively require a different label than the one EPA approved, so the case still turns on federal preemption. This case is part of a broader trend. Since late last year, pesticide manufacturers have pushed for liability protection through multiple avenues. Those efforts are now advancing at both the state and federal levels. State legislatures are moving fast. North Dakota, Georgia, and Kentucky have all advanced protections for pesticide manufacturers. Momentum has grown at the federal level as well. In February, President Donald Trump signed a national security-focused executive order involving protections for American glyphosate-based herbicide manufacturers. If the Court rules in Monsanto’s favor, the consequences would extend far beyond this case. Manufacturers could effectively become immune from state failure-to-warn claims. Courts could lose an important role in checking federal regulatory gaps, and individuals could lose a key path to hold companies accountable. At a minimum, this issue is not as settled as liability-shield advocates suggest. The EPA withdrew its interim glyphosate safety decision in 2022 and is still revisiting the underlying review. Even if the Court limits state failure-to-warn claims, the debate will not end there. Other non-label legal claims may emerge, including around design or manufacturing defects, fraud, or deceptive marketing. Congress could also create a clearer path for injured consumers to seek recourse. This trend is not just about one pesticide or one lawsuit. It is about whether Americans can still turn to the courts when a product fails to warn about serious risks. If federal review becomes a broad shield against lawsuits under state law, injured consumers will have fewer options, and manufacturers will face less pressure to be transparent. Courts should remain a vital check when regulators miss risks, move too slowly, or leave key questions unresolved. That is why pressure cannot stop at the Supreme Court. State legislatures, Congress, regulators, and consumers all have a role to play in demanding real accountability, clearer warnings, and safer alternatives when products carry serious risks.