The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roundup’s manufacturer, overturning a jury decision that awarded a Missouri man compensation for claiming the herbicide caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The ruling hinges on federal preemption, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh stating that requiring a cancer warning on Roundup’s label would conflict with the federal EPA’s existing safety determinations. This decision could significantly impact thousands of similar lawsuits across the U.S.
In a 7-2 verdict, the majority opinion concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2020 conclusion—that glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, poses no health risks when used as directed—prevents states from mandating additional warnings. The EPA’s stance overrides individual product liability claims under federal law, particularly the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which governs pesticide labeling.
The case centered on John Durnell, a St. Louis gardener who alleged prolonged Roundup use caused his illness. A 2023 Missouri state court jury awarded him $1.25 million, but the Supreme Court’s ruling establishes that federal authority supersedes state-level litigation in such matters. Durnell argued that Bayer, which acquired Roundup’s original maker Monsanto in 2018, failed to disclose cancer risks, but the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing adherence to EPA-mandated labeling.
The Trump administration supported Bayer’s appeal, diverging from the Biden administration’s earlier stance. This shift drew criticism from public health advocates and the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which had historically aligned with Trump’s policies. The government argued that bypassing the EPA’s safety findings would violate federal regulations, preventing companies from unilaterally altering product warnings.
Bayer maintained that the EPA’s ruling in February 2020—stating glyphosate exposure under standard usage guidelines does not pose cancer risks—should shield manufacturers from liability. However, the EPA retracted this assertion after legal challenges, leaving the chemical’s safety under ongoing review. Despite this, the Court’s decision reinforces the primacy of federal determinations in pesticide-related litigation.
While the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, the EPA’s subsequent investigations contradicted this finding. The agency’s latest review, conducted after the lawsuit’s appeal, concluded glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans when applied properly. Durnell’s lawsuit focused on Bayer’s alleged failure to warn consumers of this risk, a claim the Court dismissed as preempted by federal authority.
Got a news tip about the courts? If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please contact us.
Roundup, developed by Monsanto in the 1970s, remains one of the most widely used herbicides globally. Its legal battles, including multibillion-dollar settlements and class-action lawsuits, reflect enduring public concerns over glyphosate’s safety.
The ruling underscores the tension between scientific regulatory bodies and individual health claims, setting a precedent that prioritizes federal oversight in pesticide-related cases. As litigation continues in state and federal courts, the decision signals a likely reduction in claims tied to the EPA’s risk assessments, though Bayer may face ongoing challenges in jurisdictions that interpret preemption differently.
