In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Bayer, Roundup’s maker, can’t be sued in state court over claims that the weedkiller failed to warn consumers about cancer risks. The case—triggered by a Missouri man’s decades-long exposure—could halt thousands
WASHINGTON — For more than 20 years, John Durnell served his neighborhood as the man who handled the spraying. In his historic St. Louis community, that routine meant Roundup on parks and public spaces, season after season.
Then came the diagnosis: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer Durnell said he developed after years of using the weedkiller. A jury agreed, finding Bayer failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers, and awarded him $1.25 million.
On Thursday. the Supreme Court sided with the maker of Roundup in a ruling that was expected to block thousands of lawsuits built around the same basic accusation—that the product didn’t carry adequate warnings about cancer risk. The decision came in a 7-2 vote. with the justices concluding the company can’t be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely.
The case was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell, and it arrived at the high court after a wave of litigation that has produced some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the agrochemical company. Bayer acquired Roundup when it bought Monsanto in 2018.
The ruling is being described as a win for the Trump administration, but it lands in a politically volatile moment. Allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement have pushed to rein in pesticide use. and the Roundup decision sharpens the tension between regulatory decisions and the movement’s stated concerns.
At the center of the wider dispute is glyphosate, Roundup’s key ingredient. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.
The conflict, plaintiffs and regulators have debated, turns on what warnings should appear on product labels. The Environmental Protection Agency approved a label without a cancer warning. and Bayer argues it is required to follow those federal standards—not the state laws under which Durnell and others brought their claims.
Durnell’s lawsuit was framed around failure to warn. But as the decision landed, his attorney, Ashley Keller, said the ruling could still allow other suits alleging problems with the way the product was designed.
Bayer disputes the cancer claims. The company has previously set aside $16 billion to settle Roundup cases, and earlier this year it proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement to resolve many of the remaining claims.
A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed settlement will be heard in Missouri state court, where many of the lawsuits have been filed. At the same time, Bayer has been pushing states to pass laws shielding it from liability in failure-to-warn cases, and three states have agreed.
The number of claims underscores the scale of what Thursday’s ruling could disrupt. About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, mostly from home users. Bayer has said it has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market.
Still, the stakes reach beyond one product and one case. Bayer has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if it keeps getting sued. Agricultural industry groups say that could have a devastating effect on the food supply.
Pesticides are also entangled in the broader political tension inside the Trump era. The decision reflects a deeper rift between the administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, adding to their frustration with an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate’s production.
Kennedy himself has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer. Even as he has maintained that position, he has said he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.
Supreme Court Roundup Bayer Monsanto glyphosate non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma failure to warn class action settlement MAHA movement John Durnell Ashley Keller
So basically they can just sell whatever and not warn? Cool.
I don’t even get how federal regs can override people getting sick. Like if you used it for 20 years and got cancer, that seems like a warning should’ve been on the label.
My cousin said Roundup is like 100% safe now because the Supreme Court said no state lawsuits. But then I read somewhere else that it’s “probably carcinogenic,” so which is it? Feels like they’re just picking which article headline fits the day.
This is why I hate when courts get involved with big chemicals. They say federal regs found a cancer link unlikely like that matters to someone who already got lymphoma. Also Bayer buying Monsanto in 2018… so it’s basically the same company but different name, right? I’m not saying it’s totally their fault, but blocking all these lawsuits seems messed up.