The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday in favor of the manufacturer of Roundup weedkiller, a decision expected to derail thousands of lawsuits alleging that the company failed to warn consumers about potential cancer risks.
The ruling follows a wave of litigation and several multibillion-dollar verdicts against Bayer, the German agrochemical giant that acquired Monsanto, the original producer of Roundup, in 2018.
The decision marks a win for the Trump administration, which supported Bayer’s position. However, the ruling has sparked backlash from supporters of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, who seek stricter regulations on pesticide use.
In a 7-2 decision, the high court held that Roundup cannot be sued in state courts for failure to warn because federal regulators have determined a cancer link is unlikely and do not mandate a warning label. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion noted that federal law prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements that differ from or add to federal standards.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented, arguing that Monsanto could have included a warning label without violating federal law.
While the ruling specifically targets Roundup, it could create a precedent affecting similar health claims against other pesticide products.
“This decision is good for American farmers who help feed the world,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. “It provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply.”
Bayer expects the ruling to lead to the dismissal of failure-to-warn lawsuits, but the company intends to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement to resolve many of the remaining claims.
Environmental organizations and plaintiffs’ attorneys condemned the decision. Christopher Seeger, an attorney representing claimants in the settlement, stated that the ruling “wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides,” though he noted that the settlement would still provide some compensation.
Jay Feldman, executive director of the health and environmental group Beyond Pesticides, called the decision “a tragic setback for public and environmental health.”
The case reached the Supreme Court via a lawsuit filed by John Durnell, a Missouri resident who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spending two decades applying Roundup to parks in his St. Louis community. While a jury previously awarded Durnell $1.25 million, he never received the payment due to the appeal process. Durnell, now 75, stated that while his cancer is in remission, his greatest disappointment is that thousands of others in similar positions will now be barred from seeking justice in court.
The debate over whether glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer remains intense. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic.” Conversely, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined it is unlikely to cause cancer in humans when used according to directions.
Because the EPA approved a label without a cancer warning, Bayer argued it was obligated to follow those federal standards. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that state laws and courts cannot compel separate warning requirements. However, the ruling does not block lawsuits alleging defects in the product’s design, and Durnell indicated he is considering a new case on those grounds.
Bayer continues to dispute cancer claims but has previously set aside $16 billion for settlements. A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement will be heard in a Missouri state court.
Simultaneously, Bayer has lobbied several states to pass liability-shielding laws; North Dakota, Georgia, and Kentucky have already done so. Roughly 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been filed, primarily by residential users. In response, Bayer has stopped using glyphosate in its U.S. residential lawn and garden products.
The company previously suggested it might withdraw glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if litigation persisted. Agricultural groups, however, maintain that the product is essential for food security. Blake Hurst, a corn and soybean farmer and former president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, stated that the decision protects access to tools that keep food affordable.
The issue has created a rift between the administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, who were frustrated by an executive order aimed at increasing glyphosate production. Kennedy has consistently stated that glyphosate causes cancer, despite acknowledging the executive order’s importance for national security and food supply.
Following the ruling, Kelly Ryerson, a prominent MAHA activist known as “Glyphosate Girl,” called the administration’s support of Bayer “unforgivable.”
Health advocates argue that the EPA’s approval was based on limited data and that state court proceedings have uncovered additional evidence of harm. Patti Goldman, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, argued that EPA approval should not serve as a “shield” for companies failing to warn consumers about cancer risks and neurological harm.
