Idaho Judge Reads Supreme Court’s Roundup Ruling Narrowly

/in ,

A federal judge in Idaho has allowed a lawsuit alleging that Roundup causes cancer to go to trial, holding that the Supreme Court’s June 2026 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell only precludes label-based theories against the weedkiller’s manufacturer. The case is an early indication that state-law tort claims may remain viable after Durnell if they do not depend on Roundup’s label.

Issued October 1, 2026, the order denies Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence and design defect claims. Although the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim, the court stressed that such a claim could succeed on different facts.

The case is one of thousands alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in past formulations of Roundup, causes cancer. Initially transferred to a multi-district litigation panel, the case was remanded to the District of Idaho for trial.

Meanwhile, the first state-court Roundup trial since Durnell is currently underway in St. Louis County, Missouri, which includes negligence and design-defect claims. That court found failure-to-warn allegations preempted, however.

EPA is also in the midst of reevaluating glyphosate’s human health risks, and recently requested scientific input on its review.

Legal Background

Many of the lawsuits against Monsanto have included claims that the manufacturer did not provide adequate warnings about Roundup’s alleged carcinogenicity. These “failure-to-warn” claims often focused on the absence of warning language on Roundup’s label.

On June 25, 2026, in Durnell, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts such claims. As discussed in a previous post, the court found that FIFRA and its implementing regulations require manufacturers to use EPA’s approved pesticide label. EPA has not determined that glyphosate causes cancer, and its approved Roundup label carries no cancer warning.

Because the state tort claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning, the Court reasoned that the claim would impose a labeling requirement “in addition to or different from” EPA’s approved label. FIFRA expressly prohibits such state-law requirements, so the Court found the claim expressly preempted.

Impossibility Preemption Inapplicable

Before the District of Idaho, Monsanto argued that all of the plaintiff’s claims should be barred by impossibility preemption. The court was unpersuaded, finding the doctrine inapplicable.

Impossibility preemption occurs when it is impossible to comply with state and federal requirements simultaneously. In Durnell, the Supreme Court did not reach impossibility preemption, finding express preemption sufficient to decide the case. But Monsanto pointed to a Durnell footnote observing that FIFRA bars selling a pesticide whose composition differs from the one described at registration. That made it impossible for Monsanto to change its formula, the company argued.

The court disagreed. “Monsanto cannot hide behind impossibility preemption when there is no evidence indicating it could not have pursued changing Roundup’s formula with the EPA had it wanted to,” the decision states. Monsanto knew of alternatives and ultimately changed the formula, the court noted, adding that “it was not impossible to ask EPA to change the formula.”

Non-Label Claims Survive Durnell

The plaintiff brings three claims: negligence, failure-to-warn, and design defect. Because of Durnell, the court held that the plaintiff cannot put on evidence about Roundup’s labeling. However, to the extent that they do not rest on the label, the court determined that none of the three claims are precluded by Durnell.

Addressing negligence, the court held that “nothing in Durnell” suggests “its holding should be read so broadly as to encompass negligence claims that are not based on labeling.” The court rejected Monsanto’s arguments that it was “prohibited” from making any claims differing from those approved by EPA. The plaintiff “is not necessarily saying Monsanto should have warned him that Roundup caused cancer; just that [Roundup] was potentially dangerous for his health,” the decision states.

However, the court noted that the distinction between negligence and failure-to-warn claims would be “a tough line for both parties to tow,” emphasizing that the parties should “hew closely to the negligence framework.”

The court likewise recognized that a failure-to-warn claim could theoretically survive on materials other than the product label, stating that such a claim “can still be pleaded in this type of case if facts exist to support it.”

Finally, the court determined that the plaintiff’s design defect claim was not a disguised failure-to-warn claim and could proceed. The “allegation is that Roundup’s chemical formulation is unsafe. Full stop,” the decision states. The court noted that causation, hotly disputed on competing expert evidence, is for the jury.

The court also cited the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, which notes that common-law rules requiring manufacturers to design reasonably safe products free of defects do not require manufacturers to label or package products in a particular way.

Facts Preclude Failure-to-Warn Claim

Although the court determined that a failure-to-warn claim could theoretically survive Durnell, the court found evidentiary deficiencies in this case that were fatal to the claim here.

Besides product labeling, the only failure-to-warn theory that was not “severely under-developed” was based on advertising, the court held. But according to the court, the plaintiff admitted that he could not recall seeing Roundup advertisements during deposition. While the plaintiff later tried to recharacterize those statements, the court doubted that it cured the problem.

“Simply put, the Court is concerned that, were it to allow this claim to proceed to trial, Hoge would essentially be arguing a failure to warn labeling claim just without the word ‘label,’” the decision states. “This cuts against the Durnell decision.”

The case is Hoge v. Monsanto Co., No. 4:25-cv-277 (D. Idaho). Trial is set for February 2027.

EPA Seeks Scientific Input as Glyphosate Review Moves Forward

/in , , ,

EPA’s long-running review of glyphosate is entering a new phase, with the Agency soliciting scientific input and working with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reassess the pesticide’s potential effects on human health.

Last month, EPA requested comment on a list of studies that will inform its ongoing registration review of the pesticidal substance under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This month, the Agency also announced a partnership with HHS to improve scientific coordination in the review.

Although FIFRA requires EPA to review pesticide registrations at least every 15 years, the Agency has not yet completed the registration review that began in 2009. The review has been prolonged, in part, by the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 vacatur of the human-health portion of EPA’s interim decision.

Glyphosate is best known as the active ingredient in the weed-killer Roundup. EPA has long taken the position that glyphosate is not a human carcinogen, a position shared by a number of other international regulatory authorities. However, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

IARC’s determination was a major catalyst for litigation over Roundup’s alleged carcinogenicity. Nearly 4,000 actions are currently pending in a federal multidistrict litigation concerning Roundup product liability claims, with numerous state suits also pending.

Those plaintiffs were dealt a significant blow earlier this year by the Supreme Court. In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Court held that FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims based on the absence of a cancer warning from EPA-approved Roundup labels.

EPA’s registration review could have significant implications for this ongoing litigation. And because glyphosate is one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States, the review may also have significant agricultural implications.

Background on EPA’s Glyphosate Review

In 2020, EPA issued an interim registration review decision concluding that glyphosate posed no human-health risks of concern when used according to its label and was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Environmental and farmworker organizations challenged that decision in the Ninth Circuit. In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the court vacated the human-health portion of EPA’s interim decision and remanded it to the Agency for further analysis and explanation.

The court held that EPA’s selection of the “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” hazard descriptor was not supported by substantial evidence because its reasoning was internally inconsistent and did not adequately follow the Agency’s Cancer Guidelines. Among other concerns, EPA acknowledged that the available evidence did not permit a conclusion regarding the association between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but nevertheless classified glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The court also identified problems with EPA’s evaluation of animal-tumor studies. The court did not determine that glyphosate causes cancer; rather, it concluded that EPA had not adequately supported its classification.

The Ninth Circuit also held that EPA’s registration review decision constituted agency action triggering the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It remanded the ecological portion of the decision without vacatur and directed EPA to complete additional review.

In September 2022, EPA withdrew the remaining portions of the interim decision, explaining that it needed additional time to address the ecological issues and satisfy its ESA obligations. EPA stated that its underlying scientific findings had not changed but that it would revisit and better explain its evaluation of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential.

Open-Literature Search

On August 25, 2026, EPA released a list of studies screened by the Agency to inform its human health risk assessment for glyphosate. The list includes over 5,300 studies, including over one thousand studies classified as “potentially relevant.” In a separate document, EPA explained the methodology underlying the search.

The same day, EPA requested public input on the completeness of the search and asked commenters to identify additional peer-reviewed studies that may warrant consideration. The Agency initially established a September 24, 2026, deadline for comments.

On September 28, EPA extended the comment period on its search by 60 days, moving the deadline from September 24 to November 23, 2026. According to EPA, the extension is intended to provide additional time for meaningful stakeholder input.

EPA-HHS Memorandum of Understanding

On September 22, 2026, EPA and HHS announced a new interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) intended to expand scientific coordination in EPA’s glyphosate registration review. Under the agreement, the agencies will exchange scientific information, identify research gaps, and coordinate additional research concerning potential human health effects of glyphosate.

EPA and HHS will establish a joint technical working group composed of experts from EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs and several HHS components, including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Toxicology Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Environmental Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

The agencies identified several areas for additional research and coordination, including the toxicology of glyphosate formulations and surfactants, occupational epidemiology, human exposure and biomonitoring, and dietary exposure. EPA stated that its updated human health assessment will evaluate evidence concerning cancer, genotoxicity, reproductive and developmental effects, as well as exposure from glyphosate-based formulations, occupational uses, and dietary sources, including preharvest applications.

The MOU creates no new authority for either agency and does not dictate the outcome of the registration review. EPA retains sole responsibility for registration decisions under FIFRA.

What to Watch

EPA currently anticipates completing the updated human health risk assessment in early 2027. That assessment will provide another opportunity for public comment and could inform subsequent regulatory decisions concerning glyphosate. In the meantime, under the MOU, EPA and HHS intend to make appropriate materials produced by the working group available in the glyphosate registration-review docket as they are finalized.

In addition, the first Roundup trial following Durnell is currently underway. While state-law failure-to-warn claims are no longer viable, the trial may be an early indicator of whether design defect or other torts can succeed. That case is Aretino v. Monsanto Co., No. 20SL-CC03676 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis County), filed July 10, 2020.

FIFRA Preempts Label-Based Failure-to-Warn Claims, Supreme Court Rules

/in , , ,

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court held, 7-2, that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim alleging that Monsanto failed to warn users that the weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.  The decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell concludes that EPA’s approval of a pesticide label without a cancer warning constitutes a federal labeling “requirement” that state tort law cannot override.

The ruling resolves a circuit split. The Third Circuit previously found preemption on these facts, while the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and several state appellate courts had not.

What the Court Decided

Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh identified two interlocking features of FIFRA’s registration regime that together produce the preemptive effect.  First, before registering any pesticide, EPA must determine that the proposed label contains all warnings “necessary and . . . adequate to protect health and the environment” and is not false or misleading.  That determination reflects the agency’s considered judgment about what a label must—and need not—say.  Second, EPA’s implementing regulations require manufacturers to use the EPA-approved label, subject to narrow exceptions not at issue in this case.  Changing the label without EPA approval, including by unilaterally adding a cancer warning, may expose the manufacturer to civil and criminal penalties under federal law.  Together, the majority reasoned, those features constitute a federal labeling “requirement” under FIFRA’s preemption clause that preempts state tort law claims imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” those required under FIFRA.

The majority found support for that reasoning in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., which held that FDA premarket approval of medical devices preempts conflicting state-law device claims, emphasizing the similarities between that preemption clause and FIFRA’s.  It also distinguished Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, which allowed state failure-to-warn claims equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding standard, on the ground that Bates involved efficacy claims—statements EPA does not review at registration.  Safety determinations, which EPA does review, carry preemptive force that efficacy claims do not, the majority ruled.

Writing for the dissent, Justice Jackson argued FIFRA’s own misbranding prohibition is the relevant federal requirement, and a state claim that simply parallels that prohibition should not be preempted under Bates.  The majority and dissent also disagree over whether EPA’s precautionary-statement regulations reach chronic risks like cancer, as opposed to only acute hazards.  The majority concludes they do, while the dissent maintains the regulatory text addresses acute hazards only.  Because cancer is a chronic condition, the dissent argues pesticide manufacturers can add a cancer warning without EPA approval.

Justice Thomas joined the majority in full but wrote separately to question whether FIFRA’s registration scheme exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, whether FIFRA unlawfully delegates legislative power to EPA, and whether agency action can carry preemptive force under the Supremacy Clause at all.  No other Justice joined that view.

Who’s Affected

The decision most directly benefits pesticide and agrochemical manufacturers defending failure-to-warn claims premised on an EPA-approved label.  The Court’s reasoning, however, leans on a comparison to other federal statutes with similarly worded preemption clauses, which suggests the analysis may be cited in disputes involving other federally regulated, labeled products.  The opinion does not address other theories—such as design defect, manufacturing defect, or advertising-based claims—that were not before the Court in this case.

What to Watch

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s pending-dockets report lists roughly 3,900 active cases in the Roundup MDL as of July 1, 2026, a population of claims against which Durnell‘s reasoning will likely be tested in dismissal motions.  EPA’s glyphosate registration posture also remains unsettled in part, since the Ninth Circuit vacated the agency’s most recent 2020 interim registration review decision in 2022.

In addition, federal lawmakers have introduced legislation to override the Court’s interpretation.  The People Over Poison Act, H.R.9528, would add language to FIFRA clarifying that the law’s preemption clause “shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise limit a claim related to the labeling or packaging of pesticides or devices under the tort law of any State.”  The bill was introduced on June 29, 2026, by Reps. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) and has been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.

The case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 (U.S.), petition for writ of certiorari granted January 16, 2026.  A previous post on the case, written after the Court granted certiorari, can be found here.

EPA Avoids Court Order on Organophosphates, but Timeline Concerns Remain

/in , , , ,

The Ninth Circuit has declined to force EPA to act on a petition brought by nonprofits targeting organophosphate pesticides, calling the request “premature” despite noting concerns with the agency’s response timeline for certain pesticides.

The 2021 petition, brought by environmental and farmworker groups, asks EPA to revoke Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) food tolerances and cancel Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registrations for organophosphate pesticides due to health harms.

In a memo issued April 27, 2026, the court generally accepted EPA’s plan to address the disputed pesticides in three groups, finding the delay thus far “below the threshold of what we have generally found to be unreasonable.”

Under EPA’s proposed schedule, the agency plans to respond to the first group of pesticides in 2026.  For the second group, EPA plans to address the FFDCA issues in 2026 and the FIFRA issues during registration review.  EPA plans to address the third group entirely in conjunction with registration review.

Still, the court expressed concern about “the lack of a concrete timeline” for resolving some of the petitioners’ FIFRA claims, particularly those involving pesticides that may present higher risks.

“EPA admits that it will not complete its registration review for any of the thirteen pesticides by the October 2026 statutory deadline,” the memo states.  “If, by the expiration of that statutory deadline, EPA still ‘does not offer a timetable’ for resolving the FIFRA-related claims for those particular pesticides presenting higher levels of risk,” the outcome may be different, the court said.

“If EPA chooses not to address the chemicals posing the greatest risk by the 2026 deadline, Petitioners are free to file a second mandamus petition as to those chemicals,” the court added, using the legal term for a petition seeking to compel agency action.

Registration Review

The court was partly persuaded by the existence of the October 2026 registration review deadline itself, which Congress extended from October 2022 through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022, commonly known as PRIA 5.

“Congress thus judged that EPA needs more time to complete the FIFRA registration review process for the types of pesticides at issue,” the memo states.  “This weighs heavily against granting relief with respect to Petitioners’ FIFRA-related claims until after the congressional deadline has passed.”

The October 2026 deadline for registration reviews applies to pesticides registered before October 1, 2007, when Congress formally required EPA to review each registered pesticide at least once every fifteen years to ensure that it can still be used without unreasonable adverse effect on human health or the environment.

Human Health Concerns    

The 2021 petition argues that organophosphate pesticides can cause a range of unreasonable adverse effects, including neurodevelopmental harm in children at exposures “far below” EPA’s current regulatory endpoint.  According to the petition, those harms include impaired motor and mental development, reduced IQ, attention disorders, and autism associated with low-level exposure.

These alleged harms were not sufficient for the court to force EPA’s hand, however.

“The breadth of [Petitioners’] request was perhaps reasonable in 2021 in light of what the EPA characterizes as its earlier conservative assumption ‘that all the [organophosphates] cause similar neurodevelopmental effects.’”  But “all parties now seem to agree that the degree of risk does not appear to be consistent for all thirteen pesticides still at issue.”

For example, the petitioners conceded that the pesticides chlorethoxyfos, tribufos, and terbufos are lower priority at oral argument, while emphasizing greater risk associated with bensulide, the court said.  “On this record, we cannot hold that human risks justify granting the petition as to all thirteen pesticides.”

The case is In re Pesticide Action Network North America, No. 25-3955 (9th Cir.), petition for a writ of mandamus filed 6/25/2025.  The memorandum disposition is unpublished.

California Bill Would Phase Out PFAS Pesticides, Require Label Disclosures

/in , , , ,

California is considering legislation to phase out use, require labeling, and prohibit registrations of pesticides containing PFAS, defined as a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

AB 1603 states that PFAS exposure “poses a significant threat to the environment and public health” and that their intentional use in pesticides is increasing.  The bill notes that EPA has approved 70 active ingredient PFAS pesticides, including 53 allowed for use in California by state regulators, and that a 2025 analysis found that approximately 2.5 million pounds of active ingredient PFAS pesticides are applied in California annually.

The bill would immediately prohibit the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) from registering or re-registering pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as an active or inert ingredient, and would phase in the following additional requirements:

  • January 1, 2028: Prohibition on manufacturing, distribution, or sale unless labeled with the following statement: “This product contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and can contaminate produce, groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the environment.”
  • January 1, 2030: Prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with 23 specific intentionally added PFAS.
  • January 1, 2035: Blanket prohibition on using, manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale pesticides with any intentionally added PFAS.

AB 1603 would also designate pesticides with intentionally added PFAS as a restricted material.  By January 1, 2028, CDPR would be required to prescribe the times and conditions under which such materials may be used or possessed across the state, with authority to prohibit use or possession in certain areas.  Use or possession would require a written permit from the county agricultural commissioner, and those permits and related public disclosures would be subject to the same label statement described above.

Any state labeling requirement must contend with the preemption provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which prohibit states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” the statute.  EPA does not currently require any label disclosure for pesticides containing PFAS.

AB 1603 was introduced on January 16, 2026.  The Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials will hold a hearing on the bill on April 14, 2026.

EPA: Single Fluorinated Compounds Aren’t PFAS

Late last year, EPA published a webpage pushing back on concerns about pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon—the threshold for designation as PFAS under AB 1603.

“EPA-approved single fluorinated compounds are not forever chemicals, they are not PFAS, and do not pose any risks of concern when used as labeled,” the webpage states.

EPA emphasizes that, regardless of a pesticide’s contents, registration under FIFRA requires a determination that the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.  The agency conducts “robust, chemical-specific” hazard and exposure assessments, “ensuring that every scientific aspect of these compounds is thoroughly evaluated before any registration decision is made.”  It conducts a similarly thorough evaluation when setting food tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which requires a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” EPA states.

EPA notes that pesticides containing a single fluorinated carbon can offer agronomic benefits and may replace more harmful alternatives, such as organochlorines.  The agency also points to the European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, and other jurisdictions that have registered or are considering registering pesticides containing a fluorinated carbon.

Supreme Court to Weigh FIFRA Preemption in Roundup Cancer Warning Case

/in , ,

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Monsanto’s appeal of a $1.2 million jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who claimed Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer, focusing on whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims when EPA has not required the warning.

At the core of the dispute is FIFRA section 24(b), 7 U.S.C. 136v(b), which forbids states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from those required under” FIFRA.  Citing the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrisciences LLC, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have held that this language does not preempt state-law claims if the elements of the claim “parallel” FIFRA’s prohibition on misbranding.

However, more recently, in 2024, the Third Circuit created what many view as a circuit split, ruling that those courts erred by applying the “parallel requirements” test from Bates too generally.  According to the Third Circuit, EPA regulations implementing FIFRA prohibit manufacturers from adding precautionary statements to product labels without EPA approval, making such labels preempted.

Monsanto’s petition for certiorari, filed April 4, 2025, asks the Court to adopt the Third Circuit’s analysis.  “Because the jury verdict in this case requires Monsanto to include a cancer warning that EPA’s regulations did not require—and in fact affirmatively forbade it from adding—FIFRA preempts Respondent’s claim,” the petition argues.

Respondent John Durnell argues that the circuit split is both “irrelevant” and “illusory.”  In his June 9, 2025, brief, he argues that the jury verdict did not hinge on the labeling claims because Monsanto also advertised Roundup as safe in television advertisements.  He further maintains that there is no actual circuit split.

According to Durnell, there are two ways to update pesticide product labeling: by notification to EPA or by applying for amended registration.  Due to a “unique quirk” in the Third Circuit case, the court explicitly limited its analysis to the first option and “express[ed] no opinion” on whether Monsanto was required to pursue the latter, the brief states.

The Supreme Court’s decision is likely to have massive implications for numerous suits alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is carcinogenic.  EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer, but the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

The case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 (U.S.), petition for writ of certiorari granted January 16, 2026.

EPA Enforcement Under Trump 2.0: What Regulated Industries Need to Know

/in , , ,

The Trump administration’s second term has brought notable changes to environmental enforcement priorities at the Environmental Protection Agency. Recent data shows a shift in the mix of enforcement actions, with changes to both agency resources and enforcement philosophy that chemical manufacturers and other regulated industries should understand.

Enforcement Activity: A Mixed Picture

Recent enforcement data shows divergent trends across different types of actions:

Civil Judicial Cases Down: In the administration’s first six months, the Justice Department initiated 14 lawsuits for environmental violations, compared to 42 in Trump’s first term and varying numbers under previous administrations, as reported by USA Today. By eight months, DOJ had initiated 9 major civil cases on behalf of EPA, compared to 46 in the same timeframe under Biden and 53 during the equivalent period in Trump’s first term, according to the Washington Post.

Settlements have also decreased. Through the first eight months, Justice completed 28 environmental enforcement cases, compared with 81 under Biden and 80 in the first Trump administration during the same period.

Administrative Actions Stable: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement actions—which handle smaller offenses without court involvement—have remained steady or increased. The agency’s administrative case metrics match or exceed past presidencies, according to EPA statements. According to figures EPA provided to Inside EPA, the agency concluded 126 national-priority civil enforcement cases between January 20 and May 7, 2025, up from 97 cases over the same period in 2024.

Criminal Enforcement Claims: EPA asserts it has opened more environmental criminal cases in its first six months than the Biden administration. However, publicly available data does not yet confirm this—the most recent criminal cases in public databases date to 2023, making independent verification difficult at present.

Long-Term Context: Civil judicial cases have trended downward for over a decade. The Obama administration filed 102 lawsuits in the first six months of its first term in 2009, representing the peak of this enforcement metric. Every subsequent administration has seen declines, partly reflecting resource constraints across multiple administrations.

Staffing and Resource Changes

EPA and DOJ enforcement offices are undergoing significant personnel changes. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance budget has decreased by approximately $200 million since 2011 (inflation-adjusted), with staffing reduced by over 500 employees across multiple administrations, USA Today reported. The current administration is pursuing a 23 percent staff reduction at EPA—approximately 4,000 positions.

The Department of Justice’s environmental enforcement section has also experienced staff reductions. Reports indicate the unit’s attorney count dropped from approximately 120 earlier in 2025 to an estimated 65-70 lawyers by mid-year.

The government shutdown in late 2025 temporarily furloughed approximately two-thirds of surveyed EPA enforcement staff, according to union data. These furloughs affected inspections and case work during the shutdown period.

Policy Changes and Enforcement Priorities

The administration has established new enforcement priorities through formal guidance:

Environmental Justice Considerations: A March 2025 EPA memo states that “environmental justice considerations shall no longer inform EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance work.” The memo specifies that enforcers will not consider whether affected communities are overburdened or vulnerable when making enforcement decisions.

In a statement to USA Today, the EPA described this as promoting equal treatment, adding that the agency will “make sure that enforcement targets the worst pollution and threats to human health, wherever they occur.”

Energy Production: The March memo establishes that “enforcement and compliance assurance actions shall not shut down any stage of energy production (from exploration to distribution) or power generation absent an imminent and substantial threat to human health.”

Enforcement Philosophy: In its statement, EPA added that its current focus is on “efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible rather than pushing for broad injunctive relief that goes beyond what the law requires.” The agency also told the Washington Post that it is “focused on statutory obligations and Presidential priorities.”

EPA defends its approach by noting that “civil judicial complaints filed are not the best measure of law enforcement or compliance with environmental laws” and points to administrative and criminal metrics as better indicators of enforcement activity. The agency states: “A focus on quick return to compliance and addressing clear violations will increase efficiency and ensure that the Agency is accountable to the American people for every dollar spent.”

Targeted Regulatory Relief

The administration has pursued an aggressive deregulatory agenda through executive orders and agency actions. Key developments include:

  • Air Quality Standards: EPA recently moved to roll back stricter particulate matter standards implemented under Biden, arguing the previous administration exceeded its authority without sufficient review. The Biden-era standard lowered acceptable soot levels from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter—a change EPA projected would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths by 2032.
  • Water Protections: EPA released a proposal to dramatically narrow Clean Water Act protections, potentially stripping safeguards from between 38 and 70 million acres of wetlands and countless stream miles. The proposed rule would limit federal jurisdiction only to wetlands with surface water during the wet season that directly connect to continuously flowing water bodies.
  • Industry-Specific Relief: President Trump has issued proclamations granting two-year regulatory exemptions to facilities deemed vital to national security, including coke oven operations, copper smelters, coal plants, and certain chemical manufacturers. These facilities can comply with pre-Biden standards during this relief period.
  • TSCA Delays: EPA delayed the effective date of several Toxic Substances Control Act rules to March 2025, including the TCE risk management rule, providing additional time for regulatory review.
The FIFRA Exception

Notably, EPA enforcement under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has remained robust—and even intensified. As discussed in a previous post, from February through July 2025, EPA opened 84 FIFRA administrative enforcement cases with civil penalties, compared to 59 during the same period in 2024. Several 2025 FIFRA settlements rank among the largest on record.

This aggressive FIFRA enforcement continues despite broader budget cuts and deregulatory initiatives, suggesting pesticide compliance remains a priority focus area. EPA has also implemented an Expedited Settlement Agreement pilot program for minor FIFRA violations, offering discounted, non-negotiable settlements to streamline enforcement.

Strategic Implications for Compliance

The current enforcement environment presents several considerations for regulated entities:

Civil Judicial Enforcement: With fewer civil lawsuits being filed, companies face reduced likelihood of federal court actions in the near term.

Administrative Enforcement Continues: EPA maintains that administrative enforcement remains active and reportedly exceeds previous levels. These actions should not be underestimated—administrative penalties can reach high six- and low seven-figure amounts. Additional costs include attorneys’ fees, consultant expenses, and implementation of corrective measures. For product-based programs like TSCA, violations can result in loss of market access, stop-sale orders, and significant business disruption.

Alternative Enforcement Mechanisms:

State Enforcement: State agencies have primary enforcement authority for many environmental programs. However, many states have also experienced budget and staffing constraints in recent years, creating variability in state-level enforcement capacity.

Citizen Suits: Environmental statutes authorize private parties to bring enforcement actions. Organizations like the Environmental Integrity Project have filed federal lawsuits against industrial facilities for air and water violations. These citizen suits can result in penalties and requirements to install pollution controls.

Recent citizen suit examples include actions against petroleum coke plants in Louisiana, the Shell plastics plant in Pennsylvania, and food processing facilities for Clean Water Act violations.

Practical Considerations

For TSCA-regulated manufacturers and other chemical industry clients:

Compliance Planning: Environmental statutes and regulations remain in effect. Violations occurring now remain subject to administrative enforcement, citizen suits, and future enforcement actions. For TSCA matters, violations risk market access restrictions.

FIFRA Enforcement: Pesticide and antimicrobial enforcement remains robust, with an uptick in enforcement compared to 2024.

Alternative Enforcement: State agencies and citizen suits continue as enforcement mechanisms. Recent citizen suits have targeted petroleum coke plants, chemical facilities, and food processors.

Regulatory Relief: The administration has provided targeted relief including two-year exemptions for certain industrial facilities and delays of TSCA rule effective dates. Companies should evaluate whether their operations qualify.

Recommended Actions: Monitor regulatory developments, maintain compliance programs, document compliance efforts, assess citizen suit exposure, and consult counsel before operational changes.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

EPA’s 2025 FIFRA Enforcement Trends

/in , ,

EPA has maintained a surprisingly aggressive enforcement posture under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 2025, even as broader deregulatory and budget-cutting initiatives move forward.  Data from the first part of the year suggest that civil enforcement remains vigorous across multiple sectors and may be exceeding levels seen in previous years.

Key Enforcement Activity

Increased Volume of Cases:  EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database indicates that 84 FIFRA administrative enforcement cases with civil penalties were opened from February through July 2025.  This represents a notable increase compared to the same period in 2024 and 2023, when approximately 59 and 51 cases were issued, respectively.

Rising Penalties:  EPA’s enforcement in 2025 has produced some of the largest FIFRA settlements on record.  In May, Costco Wholesale Corp. agreed to a $3.07 million settlement for selling unregistered antimicrobial gloves and misbranded air filters, failing to file import notices, and violating a stop‑sale order.  As part of the same enforcement action, Winix America settled for more than $1 million.  A third seven-figure settlement was reached with Stepan Co. for selling or distributing a misbranded pesticide.

Notices of Refusal of Admission:  EPA Region 8 has been actively monitoring pesticide imports along the northern border.  EPA’s administrative enforcement dockets webpage indicates that nearly 50 notices of refusal of admission have been issued in 2025 so far.

FIFRA Expedited Settlement Agreement Pilot Program

A significant number of civil penalties have been assessed through EPA’s Expedited Settlement Agreement (ESA) Pilot Program under FIFRA, launched in January 2025.  The program targets minor, easily correctable violations and provides discounted, non-negotiable settlements, in lieu of formal enforcement.  The pilot program is intended to streamline enforcement while prioritizing resource efficiency and deterrence.

This pilot program will remain available for 36 months from its approval date, with evaluation of its effectiveness slated after 30 months.  ESA penalties have generally ranged from several hundred to several thousand dollars.

Implications for Regulated Entities
  • Enforcement focus remains strong on labeling, registration, import compliance, and antimicrobial products.
  • The ESA Pilot Program may allow expedited resolution but applies only to specific, low-severity violations.
  • Companies should continue to operate under the assumption that enforcement remains robust.
Practical Steps

To manage enforcement risk:

  • Review labeling, registration status, and marketing claims for all pesticide and antimicrobial products.
  • Confirm compliance with import documentation such as notices of arrival and relevant filings.
  • Strengthen supplier and private-label compliance monitoring.
  • Conduct a proactive self‑audit under EPA’s Audit Policy, especially if potential minor violations are identified.
  • Evaluate whether any matters may qualify for the FIFRA ESA Pilot Program.
Final Thought

Despite changes in the regulatory landscape, 2025 shows that EPA’s FIFRA enforcement remains serious.  Taking preemptive steps can provide meaningful protection and potentially reduce enforcement exposure.

First Trials Scheduled in Long-Running Paraquat Litigation

/in , ,

The first three trials have been scheduled to begin in October 2025 in a multidistrict litigation with over 5,800 plaintiffs claiming that exposure to the pesticide paraquat dichloride caused them to develop Parkinson’s disease.  A second set of trials is scheduled to begin in April 2026.

The case was filed in June 2021.  A previous set of trial cases were tossed in April 2024 after the court ruled that expert testimony linking the herbicide to Parkinson’s disease relied on “methodological contortions and outright violations of…scientific standards.”

Defendants Syngenta and Chevron maintain that there is no causal link.  They also argue that the litigation is “burdened by cases alleging implausible theories of paraquat exposure,” despite court efforts to clean the docket of cases that “should never have been filed.”

EPA has not found a “clear link” between paraquat exposure from labeled uses and Parkinson’s disease or cancer.  However, on January 17, 2025, EPA asked the Ninth Circuit to allow the agency to withdraw a 2021 interim decision on paraquat to give the agency more time to consider its health risks.

According to EPA, paraquat is one of the most widely used pesticides in the US.  It often referred to as Gramoxone, the name of a popular end-use product manufactured by Syngenta.  Chevron stopped manufacturing and distributing paraquat in 1986.

The case is In Re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, No. 3:21-md-03004 (S.D. Ill.).

eBay Not Liable for Environmental Violations on Its Platform, Court Rules

/in , , , ,

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Justice Department against eBay for allegedly selling products that violate environmental statutes, holding that eBay cannot be held liable under an internet speech law.

The September 30 order in United States of America v. eBay, Inc., No. 23-CV-7173, applies section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which shields providers of interactive computer services from being “treated as the publisher” of information “provided by another information content provider.”

Because eBay did not “materially contribute to the illegal products’ ‘alleged unlawfulness,’” it is immune for content on its platform, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York held.

The government’s complaint alleged the sale of “hundreds of thousands” of products in violation of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including automobile aftermarket defeat devices and unregistered pesticides.

The court also held that the challenges under the CAA and FIFRA would have failed regardless of CDA immunity because those laws require illegal products to be “sold” for a violation to occur.  “To ‘sell’ an item one must either possess the physical item or its title” and eBay possesses neither, the order states.

But the alleged TSCA violations—the distribution of products illegally containing methylene chloride—could have proceeded, the court noted, because TSCA only requires that a product be “introduc[ed] into commerce” for a violation to occur.

An earlier blog post on the case can be found here.