The oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell on April 27 showed a divided Supreme Court weighing whether FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims for Roundup labels when the EPA has not required a cancer warning. Justices expressed competing views on statutory uniformity, implied preemption, and the balance between federal oversight and state tort liability, leaving no clear majority signal. This closely contested posture sustains the 53.5% implied probability for a ruling favoring Monsanto. A pro-Monsanto outcome would likely limit thousands of pending Roundup suits by establishing a single national labeling standard. A contrary decision could preserve state claims and extend litigation exposure. The Court is expected to issue its ruling by early July, with any shift in the justices’ internal alignment or late developments in related EPA glyphosate reviews remaining the main variables that could move the market.
Resumo experimental gerado por IA com dados do Polymarket. Isto não é aconselhamento de trading e não tem qualquer papel na resolução deste mercado. · AtualizadoSCOTUS governa a favor da Monsanto?
SCOTUS governa a favor da Monsanto?
Sim
NOVO
NOVO
31 dez 2026
Sim
NOVO
NOVO
31 dez 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 oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell on April 27 showed a divided Supreme Court weighing whether FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims for Roundup labels when the EPA has not required a cancer warning. Justices expressed competing views on statutory uniformity, implied preemption, and the balance between federal oversight and state tort liability, leaving no clear majority signal. This closely contested posture sustains the 53.5% implied probability for a ruling favoring Monsanto. A pro-Monsanto outcome would likely limit thousands of pending Roundup suits by establishing a single national labeling standard. A contrary decision could preserve state claims and extend litigation exposure. The Court is expected to issue its ruling by early July, with any shift in the justices’ internal alignment or late developments in related EPA glyphosate reviews remaining the main variables that could move the market.
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.
Mercado Aberto: Apr 9, 2026, 5:07 PM ET
Volume
$207Data de Término
31 dez 2026Mercado Aberto
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 oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell on April 27 showed a divided Supreme Court weighing whether FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims for Roundup labels when the EPA has not required a cancer warning. Justices expressed competing views on statutory uniformity, implied preemption, and the balance between federal oversight and state tort liability, leaving no clear majority signal. This closely contested posture sustains the 53.5% implied probability for a ruling favoring Monsanto. A pro-Monsanto outcome would likely limit thousands of pending Roundup suits by establishing a single national labeling standard. A contrary decision could preserve state claims and extend litigation exposure. The Court is expected to issue its ruling by early July, with any shift in the justices’ internal alignment or late developments in related EPA glyphosate reviews remaining the main variables that could move the market.
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
$207Data de Término
31 dez 2026Mercado Aberto
Apr 9, 2026, 5:07 PM ETResolver
0x65070BE91...The oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell on April 27 showed a divided Supreme Court weighing whether FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims for Roundup labels when the EPA has not required a cancer warning. Justices expressed competing views on statutory uniformity, implied preemption, and the balance between federal oversight and state tort liability, leaving no clear majority signal. This closely contested posture sustains the 53.5% implied probability for a ruling favoring Monsanto. A pro-Monsanto outcome would likely limit thousands of pending Roundup suits by establishing a single national labeling standard. A contrary decision could preserve state claims and extend litigation exposure. The Court is expected to issue its ruling by early July, with any shift in the justices’ internal alignment or late developments in related EPA glyphosate reviews remaining the main variables that could move the market.
Resumo experimental gerado por IA com dados do Polymarket. Isto não é aconselhamento de trading e não tem qualquer papel na resolução deste mercado. · Atualizado
Cuidado com os links externos.
Cuidado com os links externos.
Frequently Asked Questions