Whether FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner manufactures the herbicide Roundup. For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has exercised its delegated authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to find that Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, do not cause cancer in humans. EPA has authorized Roundup for sale, repeatedly approved Roundup’s labeling without a cancer warning, and recently informed pesticide registrants that including a cancer warning on the labeling of a glyphosate-based pesticide would render it “misbranded” in violation of federal law. And in a provision of FIFRA entitled “Uniformity,” Congress explicitly barred States from “impos[ing] ... any requirements for labeling ... in addition to or different from those required under [FIFRA].” 7 U.S.C. §§186v(a)-(b). This case is one of thousands across the country in which individuals have nonetheless alleged that petitioner violated a state-law duty to warn that exposure to Roundup could cause cancer. The Ninth Circuit concluded that respondent’s claims were not preempted by FIFRA and upheld the admission of expert testimony on causation that relied on little more than subjective intuitions rather than the reliable application of scientific principles. The questions presented are: 1. Whether FIFRA preempts a state-law failureto-warn claim where the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval and EPA has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not appropriate. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s standard for admitting expert testimony—which departs from other circuits’ standards—is inconsistent with this Court’s precedent and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. @