Pro Bono

Anderson & Kreiger LLP recently filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of pro bono clients Dr. Naomi Oreskes and Dr. Alexander A. Kaurov, two leading researchers on scientific integrity and public trust in science. The brief was submitted in Monsanto Company v. Durnell (No. 24-1068), a case that raises significant questions about the intersection of federal pesticide regulation, state law claims, and the role of scientific evidence in protecting public health.

Monsanto Company v. Durnell : The Case at a Glance

At issue is whether federal law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims related to pesticides. Monsanto argues that because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has, under FIFRA, determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved the label for Monsanto’s Roundup product, of which glyphosate is the main active ingredient, state-law claims challenging Roundup product warnings should be barred.

The respondent, who contracted cancer after using Roundup and received a $1.25M award from a Missouri jury for Monsanto’s failure to warn that Roundup and glyphosate cause cancer, argues that FIFRA does not preempt state-law claims.

Why This Matters

The amicus brief highlights a critical issue: the integrity of the scientific record underlying regulatory decisions. The brief focuses on a widely cited 2000 study (known as “WKM2000”) that concluded glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, posed no cancer risk to humans. Monsanto itself submitted WKM2000 to the EPA, consistent with FIFRA’s process that lets manufacturer-submitted science form the basis for EPA’s pesticide registration decisions. Relying on WKM2000, EPA concluded that glyphosate did not cause cancer.

WKM2000 was later revealed, through litigation, to have been ghostwritten by Monsanto and the paper was formally retracted in 2026 due to serious ethical concerns. In the years prior to its retraction, WKM2000 influenced decades of science and regulatory decision-making on glyphosate. That such a paper, ghost-written by the leading manufacturer of glyphosate products, played such an important role underscores the vulnerabilities in both scientific literature and regulatory systems.

The Role of Litigation as a Safeguard

A central argument advanced in the brief is that civil litigation serves as an important check on these systems. The ghostwriting of the WKM2000 study was not uncovered by regulators or academic peer review; it came to light through discovery in civil lawsuits. As the brief explains, litigation can act as a “catalyst” for correcting the scientific record, prompting regulatory reassessment, and providing justice for those injured by harmful products.

Without the ability to bring state-law claims, the brief argues, information such as WKM2000’s dubious provenance might remain concealed, undermining both public health protections and the integrity of regulatory decision-making.

Broader Implications

Beyond the immediate dispute, the case highlights how modern regulatory systems depend heavily on the integrity of scientific research and how vulnerable those systems can be when that integrity is compromised, including by industry participants. Because agencies like EPA often rely on published studies rather than conducting independent testing, flawed or biased research can shape policy decisions for years before being corrected. The brief underscores that state-law claims have long served as an important backstop in this framework, helping to surface new information, challenge assumptions, and prompt reevaluation when the underlying science proves incomplete or unreliable. In that way, the case is not only about pesticide regulation and the need to preserve pathways to discovery and justice, but also about the broader relationship between science, law, and accountability.

Anderson & Kreiger’s participation in this matter reflects a longstanding commitment to pro bono work that is closely tied to the firm’s roots. The firm’s first case, a pro bono effort, resulted in the cleanup of a contaminated public water supply, setting an early example of how legal advocacy can advance public health and environmental protection. More than three decades later, the firm continues to take on pro bono matters ranging from complex, high-impact cases to those involving individual clients. That work remains an integral part of the firm’s practice, supported by a culture that encourages participation across all levels and treats pro bono service as a meaningful component of professional development.