Login
The U.S. Supreme Court today handed Bayer a major legal victory, ruling that federal pesticide law bars state-law cases from claiming the company failed to warn consumers that its Roundup weedkiller could cause cancer.
The 7-2 decision is expected to significantly reduce Bayer’s exposure to thousands of pending lawsuits tied to Roundup, the glyphosate-based herbicide originally developed by Monsanto, which Bayer acquired in 2018.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, said the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims. That’s because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which regulates pesticide labeling, has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer.
The EPA has never required a cancer warning on Roundup labels.
“As demonstrated by that comprehensive regulatory regime, EPA possesses a variety of tools to learn of and address new safety information,” Kavanaugh wrote. State law, he added, cannot impose labeling requirements that are “in addition to” or “different from” federal requirements.
The ruling overturns a Missouri jury verdict that awarded $1.25 million to John Durnell, who alleged that years of exposure to Roundup caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The case, Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, has been closely watched because of its implications for tens of thousands of similar lawsuits filed across the country.
Ashley Keller, the attorney for Durnell, called the ruling “a disappointing decision.”
“But we will fight on for Mr. Durnell and the scores of other victims by bringing claims this opinion leaves entirely untouched,” he said.
Bayer, which has spent years battling litigation over Roundup and has paid billions of dollars to settle claims alleging that glyphosate causes cancer, welcomed the court’s decision, calling it a victory for science, farmers and regulatory certainty.
In a statement, the company said the decision should lead to the dismissal of existing warning-based claims and prevent future lawsuits based on alleged failures to warn.
“It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims,” the company said.
‘Tip of the pesticide iceberg’
The Trump administration supported Bayer’s position, arguing that allowing state juries to impose labeling requirements beyond those approved by federal regulators would undermine the national pesticide regulatory system.
Nathan Donley, environmental health science director of the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, said the administration should instead focus on protecting people “instead of foreign pesticide companies.”
“The disturbing reality is that glyphosate is just the tip of the pesticide iceberg,” he said. “The EPA has approved hundreds of poisons the agency itself has linked to cancer, and our parents, kids and loved ones are paying for it with their health, sometimes their lives. The need to profoundly reform our industry-captured system of pesticide regulation could not be clearer.”
The Environmental Working Group, in a statement, called the ruling a “massive gift” to Bayer but stated the case was larger than one company.
“The consequences could extend far beyond Roundup,” the statement read. “Other pesticide manufacturers could also benefit from a legal environment that makes it harder for people harmed by these products to seek justice.”
Not all the justices agreed with the ruling
The ruling had opponents from the bench.
In their dissent, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that the majority improperly shut down plaintiffs seeking relief under state law. Jackson wrote that Durnell’s claim paralleled federal requirements for accurate labeling.
“Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim is not ‘in addition to or different from’ FIFRA’s mandates,” Jackson wrote, adding that the ruling “misunderstands FIFRA’s requirements, misinterprets the scope of FIFRA’s preemption, and ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered.”
Following the ruling, Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland said these dangers crossed the political aisle and exemplified how critical the landmark case remains.
“Indicative of this new political reality is the fact that justices on the far sides of the political spectrum — Justice Ketanji Brown and Justice Neil Gorsuch — joined together in dissent, arguing that the Supreme Court should have followed the lower courts,” she said. “This decision will only embolden the MAHA movement and the efforts to create new political coalitions outside the corporate-dominated political parties.”
Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, called the decision a “miscarriage of justice.”
“They’re basically giving a free ride to a known creator of carcinogens,” he said. “They’re exposing the entire country to these carcinogens and the Supreme Court just gave them complete immunity so they can continue doing this.”
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
The court did not rule on whether glyphosate causes cancer. Instead, the decision focused on whether federal law permits state-law claims alleging that Roundup’s label should have contained a cancer warning.
The EPA has repeatedly found that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk when used as directed. However, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” a determination that has fueled years of litigation and scientific debate.
Today’s ruling is expected to strengthen Bayer’s efforts to resolve remaining Roundup-related claims and could mark a turning point in one of the largest product-liability battles in U.S. history.
“Just imagine how the thousands of people with lawsuits who were harmed by these carcinogens who have had their lives destroyed hoping to get relief,” said Behar. “Now they will not be able to have that.”
Related articles in The Defender
- Will Justices Side With Pesticide Giant or Cancer Victim? SCOTUS Weighs Landmark Liability Case
- Glyphosate Poses ‘Profound and Permanent’ Risks to Kids: Children’s Health Defense Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Rule Against Bayer
- Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case That Could Protect Pesticide Giant Bayer From Cancer Lawsuits
