Supreme Court Divided on Blocking Thousands of Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether federal EPA regulations should block thousands of state lawsuits against Bayer over Roundup's alleged failure to warn about cancer risks, with justices appearing divided on the preemption question. John Durnell won $1.25 million after developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma following 20 years of Roundup use, one of over 100,000 claims that have prompted Bayer to set aside $16 billion for settlements. The case pits the WHO's 2015 classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic against the EPA's determination that it is not likely carcinogenic when used as directed. The Trump administration backs Bayer despite opposition from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s MAHA movement, creating political tensions over pesticide policy. A decision expected by June 2025 could determine whether companies face state-level liability or gain federal protection, with implications for both the pharmaceutical industry and America's agricultural sector.

Supreme Court deliberations on federal preemption of state lawsuits

• ▪Bayer has faced more than 100,000 Roundup claims, mostly from home users
• ▪Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan expressed concern that facing liability under different state laws could make it tough for companies and undermine the purpose of federal regulations
• ▪A jury awarded John Durnell $1.25 million after agreeing that Bayer failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers from Roundup
• ▪John Durnell's lawyers argue that federal law does not stop Bayer from putting a warning about possible cancer risk on its products under state law
• ▪The Supreme Court is expected to decide the Roundup case by the end of June 2025
• ▪The Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday over whether to block thousands of lawsuits alleging Roundup maker failed to warn people the weedkiller could cause cancer
• ▪Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether waiting for EPA review ties the hands of state courts in responding to information suggesting risks not on the label
• ▪John Durnell filed a lawsuit in Missouri alleging he developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after more than 20 years of using Roundup on parks in his St. Louis community
• ▪Bayer argues that federal law requires the company to follow EPA labeling standards rather than state laws under which John Durnell and others have sued
• ▪Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that EPA reviews its labeling determinations every 15 years, which can be a relatively long period in terms of scientific advancement
• ▪Bayer has set aside $16 billion to settle Roundup cancer cases
• ▪Bayer proposed a major settlement for Roundup cases earlier in 2025

Scientific and regulatory disagreement over glyphosate's cancer risk

• ▪The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed
• ▪The Environmental Protection Agency approved a label for Roundup without a cancer warning
• ▪The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic in 2015

Political tensions between Trump administration and MAHA movement

• ▪Pesticides have created a rift between the Trump administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's MAHA movement
• ▪Roundup maker Monsanto is backed by the Trump administration in the Supreme Court case
• ▪The Trump administration's legal position supporting Monsanto is at odds with some allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement who want to rein in pesticide use
• ▪Dozens of MAHA activists and supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court on Monday for a People vs. Poison rally to decry Monsanto's efforts to shield itself from lawsuits

Perspective of Bayer

• ▪Bayer warns it may withdraw glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if Roundup lawsuits continue