The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, holding that federal law preempts state-level lawsuits accusing Bayer's Monsanto of failing to warn consumers of Roundup's alleged cancer risks. Written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the majority opinion blocks thousands of pending claims, reversing a $1.25 million award for Missouri gardener John Durnell. While Bayer celebrated the decision as a victory for regulatory clarity, environmental and public health advocates condemned it as a severe blow to consumer protection.
Supreme Court Roundup ruling
- ▪Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the Supreme Court's majority decision
- ▪The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on June 25, 2026, that Monsanto cannot be held liable under state laws for failing to warn consumers about alleged cancer risks of Roundup
- ▪Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas
- ▪The Supreme Court's decision is expected to block thousands of pending state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits against Bayer and Monsanto over Roundup
Federal preemption of state lawsuits
- ▪The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and has approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings
- ▪The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims that differ from EPA-approved labels
- ▪The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans in 2015
Bayer litigation settlement strategy
- ▪Bayer has stopped selling glyphosate-based Roundup products in the United States residential lawn and garden market, though it continues to offer alternative formulations
- ▪Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement in February 2026 to resolve current and future Roundup litigation claims in a Missouri state court
- ▪Bayer has lobbied state legislatures to pass laws shielding pesticide manufacturers from liability in failure-to-warn lawsuits, with three states passing such measures
Environmental activist criticism
- ▪Tarah Heinzen of Food and Water Watch denounced the Supreme Court's decision as a disaster for public health that sides with big business over people
- ▪Patti Goldman of Earthjustice criticized the ruling, stating that EPA label approval should not shield companies from liability regarding serious health dangers
- ▪Kelly Ryerson, a Make America Healthy Again activist, stated the ruling would perpetuate chronic disease epidemics and criticized the Trump administration's support of Bayer
Durnell case background
- ▪The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld John Durnell's jury verdict in 2025 before the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision
- ▪John Durnell, a St. Louis gardener who used Roundup for over 20 years as a neighborhood "spray guy," developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma
- ▪A Missouri jury awarded John Durnell $1.25 million in damages in 2023 after finding Monsanto failed to warn consumers of Roundup's cancer risks
Story comments
Loading comments…