The Department of Justice filed a memo supporting a Supreme Court decision regarding pesticide maker liability.
Posted by The Joe Rogan Experience, Checked
- Sources
- 2 support2 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 72%
The Joe Rogan ExperienceNov 6, 2026
The Justice Department filed a brief as amicus curiae in Monsanto v. Durnell backing Monsanto's position, and the Supreme Court later ruled for Monsanto that FIFRA preempts the failure-to-warn claim. The claim's word 'memo' and its phrasing 'supporting a decision' are loose: the filing was an amicus brief submitted before the ruling, and it supported the position the Court adopted.
What was said
… Tony Fabrizio got paid by pharma and did a poll saying that it's not a popular issue, and Susie and Tony Fabrizio, in that world, put a full halt for a year on any vaccine inquiry. The president busted that up, just like he did with the psychedelic thing. The president did not know about the Department of Justice, ah, memo. He didn't know about the Supreme Court ruling on, and he didn't know the administration supported it, and his initial, his reaction was that that's a terrible decision. Did he investigate and find out who was responsible? I can't speak to that, but I can listen. …
The Joe Rogan Experience · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The Justia case record for Monsanto v. Durnell lists Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, arguing for the United States as amicus curiae, and records a Dec 1, 2025 amicus brief filed by the United States.[3]
Supports. The Supreme Court opinion holds that FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell's state-law failure-to-warn claim, reversing the Missouri Court of Appeals, which is the pesticide-maker liability ruling the claim refers to.[1]
Context. The DOJ has filed similar amicus briefs in earlier pesticide preemption cases, such as a 2025-era brief in Bates v. Dow AgroSciences, where the United States argued the Fifth Circuit correctly applied FIFRA preemption.[2]
Context. The source describing the DOJ brief as urging the Court to take the glyphosate case is a commentary piece that repeats the claimant's account, so it adds little independent corroboration.[4]
Sources
4 sources: 2 primary, 2 not rated
- 124-1068.xmlsupremecourt.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 2Microsoft Word - 2003-0388.pet.ami.invjustice.gov · primary source · cited for: context
- 3Monsanto v. Durnell | 609 U.S. ___ (2026)supreme.justia.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 4Calley Means: Bayer's Glyphosate Win Shows How Lobbyists Captured Trump's Health Policyfinance.biggo.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post