John Carson used Roundup for about 30 years before developing cancer and sued Monsanto, alleging it failed to warn that the weedkiller could cause cancer. The district court dismissed his Georgia failure-to-warn claim as expressly preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), relying on the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of Roundup labels without a cancer warning and its view that glyphosate was not likely carcinogenic. A panel reversed, and the Eleventh Circuit reheard the case en banc to address whether agency action must independently have the “force of law” to preempt state requirements under FIFRA. The en banc court held that courts must answer the preemption question through ordinary statutory interpretation of FIFRA’s express-preemption clause, not a categorical threshold force-of-law test. It did not decide whether FIFRA ultimately preempts Carson’s warning claim and remanded that question to the original panel. Judge Jordan concurred, finding the parties’ settlement left adverse interests and a justiciable dispute. Judge Wilson dissented, viewing the settlement as collusive and urging dismissal for lack of a live controversy.