The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 25 that Roundup’s makers can’t be sued for failing to warn that the weedkiller might cause cancer—blocking thousands of cases. The decision lands as the MAHA movement pushes to cut pesticide use, while the Trump administrat
On June 25, the Supreme Court didn’t just decide a case involving Roundup. It effectively slammed the courthouse doors on thousands of lawsuits arguing the weedkiller failed to warn consumers about cancer risks.
The ruling blocked lawsuits over allegations that Roundup’s manufacturer did not adequately warn that the product might cause cancer. allowing the company to avoid liability on failure-to-warn claims. For people who say they developed cancer after using Roundup for years. the timing landed like a final word—one that came despite continuing public health arguments over the harms of glyphosate. the ingredient at the center of the dispute.
Roundup users who developed cancer argued that the weedkiller violated state laws aimed at dangerous products. Public health groups pressed the same point. saying lawsuits were necessary because the Environmental Protection Agency. which regulates pesticides. has not adequately protected Americans from risks tied to glyphosate. The EPA has not determined that Roundup poses a cancer risk and does not require a label saying it does.
Bayer, which bought Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, maintains the product is safe for people to use and that there is no basis for the cancer-warning claims.
The legal fight has been building for years, with the key question shifting between warning obligations and what science and regulators have—or have not—concluded.
In 2015. lawsuits against Monsanto began after a World Health Organization agency said glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans. ” a finding Monsanto disputes. More recently. a widely cited 2000 scientific review that purported to show the chemical’s safety was retracted in December after authors’ conflicts of interest with Monsanto came to light.
One of the plaintiffs who pressed his case into court was John Durnell. He said he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer, after using the weedkiller for more than two decades. Durnell argued Monsanto should have warned consumers that Roundup may be carcinogenic or that people should wear protective gear when applying it. A St. Louis jury sided with him.
Bayer has since stopped using glyphosate in Roundup products sold for residential use. But the company has also warned that it might have to stop selling glyphosate to U.S. farmers if lawsuits continue. Major agricultural groups warned that a shift like that would pose a “devastating risk to America’s food supply.”.
The Court’s decision also collided with a broader political fight over pesticides—one that runs straight through the MAHA movement’s push to reshape U.S. health and environmental policy.
The Make America Healthy Again movement has argued for reducing pesticide use. and it has clashed with policies the Trump administration backed. The administration previously backed Bayer. On Feb. 18. President Donald Trump issued an executive order saying that for the sake of national defense. he was increasing domestic supplies of glyphosate.
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., tapped by Trump to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, said he supported the president despite backlash from his MAHA followers.
Kennedy’s own ties to the litigation complicated the politics. He sued Monsanto over Roundup when he was a practicing lawyer, and he co-founded one of the groups that filed a brief supporting Durnell.
For Vani Hari. a food advocate who has worked with the Trump administration on MAHA-aligned policies. the Supreme Court’s latest decision was personal and furious. Hari said she was “sickened” by the ruling. She criticized the administration’s support of Bayer and said the ball is now in Congress’ court.
“The Supreme Court handed Monsanto a victory. Now it’s up to Congress to decide whether justice belongs to the American people or to the most powerful corporate lobbyists in Washington. ” Hari said. “Every lawmaker will have to choose a side: families or the poison lobby. And voters are going to remember that choice in November.”.
The sequence of facts is now hard to ignore: the Court blocked failure-to-warn claims on June 25, while the political argument over glyphosate policy escalated earlier this year through an executive order on Feb. 18 and public backlash tied to MAHA priorities.
For families waiting for their day in court. the Supreme Court’s ruling has shifted the fight from litigation to legislation. For Bayer, the decision provides immediate protection from a wave of lawsuits on warning requirements. For public health advocates. the next question is whether Congress will move while the EPA’s stance—no required cancer-risk label and no finding that Roundup poses a cancer risk—remains unchanged.
Roundup glyphosate Supreme Court Monsanto Bayer MAHA movement non-Hodgkin lymphoma EPA pesticides Congress Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Vani Hari