Monsanto’s Arguments Sliced Apart
Monsanto’s appeal pressed seven major points—each one dismantled by the appellate panel.
- Federal Preemption:Monsanto invoked the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), arguing state-law claims for failure to warn and design defect were preempted. The court disagreed, ruling state tort claims can coexist with federal regulatory schemes, especially where state law seeks to protect public health.
- Expert Testimony:The company attacked the admissibility of expert opinions referencing a 2022 Ninth Circuit decision that sharply criticized the EPA’s glyphosate assessment. Monsanto called this “prejudicial,” but the appeals court found no categorical bar to judicial opinions as evidence, holding that such references must simply meet standard relevance and fairness criteria.
- Punitive Damages:The court found the trial judge correctly applied constitutional due process, emphasizing that Monsanto continued marketing glyphosate-based Roundup unchanged—even after repeated warnings, jury verdicts, and mounting scientific concerns. The appellate court agreed the reduced punitive awards met constitutional muster.
The Science and the Stakes
At the heart of the battle lies glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient. Monsanto’s defense has always rested on the EPA’s controversial conclusion that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Plaintiffs, however, marshaled an array of scientific studies, expert witnesses, and, notably, pointed to the Ninth Circuit’s findings that the EPA’s review process was flawed.
The appellate opinion underscored that “judicial opinions are not automatically excluded from jury trials and must be evaluated, like any other evidence, for their relevance to the issues at hand.” In doing so, the court broadened the scope for how regulatory and judicial findings may shape future toxic tort trials.
