>The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Actpreempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA.
In other words, they don't have immunity from cancer lawsuits. They have immunity from cancer lawsuits stemming from being noncompliant with state labeling laws.
Another anti-states right ruling that will be championed by the states rights crowd. As long as it’s in corporate interests, states have no rights.
Actual ruling seems reasonable from a legal perspective. It is the EPA's job to determine if a chemical is safe. If they say it is, why is it the court's job to say otherwise?
Most Americans do not understand the constitutional role of the judicial branch, and rhetoric like this exploits that in ways that are really bad for the integrity of our government and political discourse.
Supreme Court opinions are public and generally comprehensible by an average citizen. Please take even the tiniest amount of effort to understand how our government process works before buying into flamebait from media orgs and NGOs that profit from your ignorance. And if you have a problem with our laws, it's usually best to blame the lawmakers first.
Our so-called balance of powers does not currently exist in practice.
That being said, this ruling is, as another poster pointed out, confirmation of the supremacy of federal regulations over state law.
Would you prefer to live in a country where the Supreme Court was ruling against federal regulatory agencies and in favor of one off state laws? I think you'd find some uneasy political bedfellows.