Supreme Court supports Bayer in landmark Roundup decision, limiting cancer warning lawsuits

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims against Bayer’s Roundup herbicide. This ruling marks a major legal victory for Bayer after nearly a decade of litigation over allegations that glyphosate causes cancer. In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the court determined that states cannot require cancer warnings that differ from labeling standards approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that the EPA has consistently found glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is not likely to cause cancer and has never required a cancer warning on product labels. Therefore, state tort claims seeking additional warnings impose requirements “in addition to or different from” federal law and are barred under FIFRA. The ruling overturns a $1.25 million Missouri verdict awarded to John Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup for over twenty years.

Bayer stated that the decision should significantly reduce its Roundup litigation exposure, with over 60,000 active lawsuits still pending in U.S. courts. The company also plans to seek court approval for a proposed $7.25 billion settlement to resolve remaining claims. Legal analysts noted that the decision could strengthen federal preemption defenses in paraquat litigation involving Syngenta and Corteva. However, the ruling does not affect negligence or product design-defect claims, which remain available under state law.

In dissent, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch argued that the majority misinterpreted FIFRA and left injured plaintiffs without an effective legal remedy. Consumer advocacy groups, including the Make America Healthy Again movement, criticized the ruling as a setback for consumer protection and pesticide accountability.

Source: NPR