The Supreme Court’s April 27 oral arguments in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell have solidified trader expectations that the Court will hold the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state failure-to-warn claims against Roundup labels lacking cancer warnings. Justices closely examined express and implied preemption under FIFRA’s uniformity provision, with the Trump administration’s Solicitor General joining in support of federal labeling authority over divergent state tort duties. A conservative majority’s recent signals on agency deference and resistance to imposing additional warning requirements absent EPA approval have reinforced the 87 percent implied probability for a ruling favoring Monsanto. The decision, expected by early July, could affect thousands of similar cases; any shift in the Court’s analysis of federalism or pesticide regulation during deliberations remains the primary variable that could still alter the outcome.
Résumé expérimental généré par IA à partir des données Polymarket. Ceci n'est pas un conseil de trading et ne joue aucun rôle dans la résolution de ce marché. · Mis à jourSCOTUS se prononce en faveur de Monsanto ?
SCOTUS se prononce en faveur de Monsanto ?
Oui
NOUVEAU
NOUVEAU
31 déc. 2026
Oui
NOUVEAU
NOUVEAU
31 déc. 2026
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court, in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, rules that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
The Supreme Court will be considered to rule that FIFRA preempts such claims if it issues a decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell holding that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims, including ruling that manufacturers cannot be held liable under state law for failing to include warnings not required or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
If the Supreme Court ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell affirms that state-law failure-to-warn claims are not preempted, allows such claims to proceed, or otherwise declines to find federal preemption, the market will resolve to “No”. If the case is dismissed, settled, or otherwise disposed of without a merits decision within this market’s timeframe, the market will resolve to “No”. If no Supreme Court ruling on the merits of Monsanto Co. v. Durnell is issued by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the U.S. Supreme Court; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.The Supreme Court’s April 27 oral arguments in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell have solidified trader expectations that the Court will hold the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state failure-to-warn claims against Roundup labels lacking cancer warnings. Justices closely examined express and implied preemption under FIFRA’s uniformity provision, with the Trump administration’s Solicitor General joining in support of federal labeling authority over divergent state tort duties. A conservative majority’s recent signals on agency deference and resistance to imposing additional warning requirements absent EPA approval have reinforced the 87 percent implied probability for a ruling favoring Monsanto. The decision, expected by early July, could affect thousands of similar cases; any shift in the Court’s analysis of federalism or pesticide regulation during deliberations remains the primary variable that could still alter the outcome.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court, in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, rules that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
The Supreme Court will be considered to rule that FIFRA preempts such claims if it issues a decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell holding that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims, including ruling that manufacturers cannot be held liable under state law for failing to include warnings not required or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
If the Supreme Court ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell affirms that state-law failure-to-warn claims are not preempted, allows such claims to proceed, or otherwise declines to find federal preemption, the market will resolve to “No”. If the case is dismissed, settled, or otherwise disposed of without a merits decision within this market’s timeframe, the market will resolve to “No”. If no Supreme Court ruling on the merits of Monsanto Co. v. Durnell is issued by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the U.S. Supreme Court; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
The Supreme Court will be considered to rule that FIFRA preempts such claims if it issues a decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell holding that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims, including ruling that manufacturers cannot be held liable under state law for failing to include warnings not required or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
If the Supreme Court ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell affirms that state-law failure-to-warn claims are not preempted, allows such claims to proceed, or otherwise declines to find federal preemption, the market will resolve to “No”. If the case is dismissed, settled, or otherwise disposed of without a merits decision within this market’s timeframe, the market will resolve to “No”. If no Supreme Court ruling on the merits of Monsanto Co. v. Durnell is issued by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the U.S. Supreme Court; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
Marché ouvert : Apr 9, 2026, 5:07 PM ET
Volume
$207Date de fin
31 déc. 2026Marché ouvert
Apr 9, 2026, 5:07 PM ETResolver
0x65070BE91...This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court, in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, rules that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
The Supreme Court will be considered to rule that FIFRA preempts such claims if it issues a decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell holding that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims, including ruling that manufacturers cannot be held liable under state law for failing to include warnings not required or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
If the Supreme Court ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell affirms that state-law failure-to-warn claims are not preempted, allows such claims to proceed, or otherwise declines to find federal preemption, the market will resolve to “No”. If the case is dismissed, settled, or otherwise disposed of without a merits decision within this market’s timeframe, the market will resolve to “No”. If no Supreme Court ruling on the merits of Monsanto Co. v. Durnell is issued by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the U.S. Supreme Court; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.The Supreme Court’s April 27 oral arguments in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell have solidified trader expectations that the Court will hold the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state failure-to-warn claims against Roundup labels lacking cancer warnings. Justices closely examined express and implied preemption under FIFRA’s uniformity provision, with the Trump administration’s Solicitor General joining in support of federal labeling authority over divergent state tort duties. A conservative majority’s recent signals on agency deference and resistance to imposing additional warning requirements absent EPA approval have reinforced the 87 percent implied probability for a ruling favoring Monsanto. The decision, expected by early July, could affect thousands of similar cases; any shift in the Court’s analysis of federalism or pesticide regulation during deliberations remains the primary variable that could still alter the outcome.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the Supreme Court, in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, rules that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
The Supreme Court will be considered to rule that FIFRA preempts such claims if it issues a decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell holding that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims, including ruling that manufacturers cannot be held liable under state law for failing to include warnings not required or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
If the Supreme Court ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell affirms that state-law failure-to-warn claims are not preempted, allows such claims to proceed, or otherwise declines to find federal preemption, the market will resolve to “No”. If the case is dismissed, settled, or otherwise disposed of without a merits decision within this market’s timeframe, the market will resolve to “No”. If no Supreme Court ruling on the merits of Monsanto Co. v. Durnell is issued by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the U.S. Supreme Court; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
The Supreme Court will be considered to rule that FIFRA preempts such claims if it issues a decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell holding that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims, including ruling that manufacturers cannot be held liable under state law for failing to include warnings not required or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
If the Supreme Court ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell affirms that state-law failure-to-warn claims are not preempted, allows such claims to proceed, or otherwise declines to find federal preemption, the market will resolve to “No”. If the case is dismissed, settled, or otherwise disposed of without a merits decision within this market’s timeframe, the market will resolve to “No”. If no Supreme Court ruling on the merits of Monsanto Co. v. Durnell is issued by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET, this market will resolve to “No”.
The resolution source for this market will be official information from the U.S. Supreme Court; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
Volume
$207Date de fin
31 déc. 2026Marché ouvert
Apr 9, 2026, 5:07 PM ETResolver
0x65070BE91...The Supreme Court’s April 27 oral arguments in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell have solidified trader expectations that the Court will hold the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state failure-to-warn claims against Roundup labels lacking cancer warnings. Justices closely examined express and implied preemption under FIFRA’s uniformity provision, with the Trump administration’s Solicitor General joining in support of federal labeling authority over divergent state tort duties. A conservative majority’s recent signals on agency deference and resistance to imposing additional warning requirements absent EPA approval have reinforced the 87 percent implied probability for a ruling favoring Monsanto. The decision, expected by early July, could affect thousands of similar cases; any shift in the Court’s analysis of federalism or pesticide regulation during deliberations remains the primary variable that could still alter the outcome.
Résumé expérimental généré par IA à partir des données Polymarket. Ceci n'est pas un conseil de trading et ne joue aucun rôle dans la résolution de ce marché. · Mis à jour
Méfiez-vous des liens externes.
Méfiez-vous des liens externes.
Questions fréquentes