WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Monday in a Missouri case examining whether federal pesticide laws preempt state-level failure-to-warn claims involving Roundup weed killer. The dispute centers on whether states can require warning labels beyond those approved by federal regulators.

The case arose after a jury awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis. Jurors held Monsanto liable for failing to warn of the cancer risk posed by the product.

Bayer, which owns Monsanto, contends that federal pesticide laws preempt failure-to-warn claims brought under state laws because states cannot require additional labeling beyond what federal regulators approve. The Trump administration has sided with Bayer in the case, reversing the position taken by the Biden administration. That stance places the administration at odds with some supporters of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, who oppose granting companies legal immunity from failure-to-warn claims.

Agricultural groups, business associations, health care organizations, plaintiffs' attorneys and state elected officials have filed about 30 separate legal briefs urging the Supreme Court to rule for or against Bayer's assertion of federal legal protection. The volume of briefs reflects the range of interests following the case across industries and levels of government.

Former officials of the Environmental Protection Agency filed a court brief stating that Roundup's maker never proposed that the agency include a cancer warning on the product's labels. The former officials argued that the lack of such labeling should not preempt failure-to-warn lawsuits under state law. The case is expected to have broad implications for how federal pesticide registration interacts with state tort claims nationwide.