The Supreme Court appeared divided Monday over whether thousands of Americans alleging they developed cancer from the weedkiller Roundup should have their day in court, as Bayer seeks federal protection from a wave of litigation that has already resulted in multibillion-dollar verdicts against the agrochemical giant.
The case centers on John Durnell, a Missouri man who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after more than 20 years serving as his neighborhood association's "spray guy," using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community. A jury found that Bayer-owned Monsanto failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. His case is one of thousands filed by people who say they were not adequately informed of health risks.
Scientific Dispute at the Heart of Litigation
The legal battle reflects an ongoing scientific divide over Roundup's key ingredient, glyphosate. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as "probably carcinogenic" 11 years ago in 2015. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed, approving a label without a cancer warning. Bayer argues it is required to follow those federal standards, not the state laws under which Durnell and others have sued.
Several justices expressed concern about the implications of blocking state lawsuits. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether waiting for EPA review ties the hands of state courts, asking, "Throughout that long process, in response to information that suggests there is a risk that's not on the label, the states cannot do anything?" 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.
Durnell's lawyers argued that federal law does not stop Bayer from putting a warning about possible cancer risk on its products under state law. However, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan both seemed concerned that facing liability under different state laws could make it tough for companies and undermine the purpose of federal regulations.
Corporate Strategy and Public Health Impact
Bayer disputes the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases and proposed a major settlement earlier this year. The company has faced more than 100,000 Roundup claims, mostly from home users. At the same time, it has tried to persuade states to pass laws barring new cases, and a few have agreed. Bayer has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market and has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if the lawsuits persist.
The American Farm Bureau Federation said in court documents that removing it from the market would have an "immediate, devastating risk to America's food supply" at a time when the industry is already under pressure. Environmental groups say Bayer wants to keep juries out of the lawsuits because of its state court losses.
Political Tensions and Public Outcry
Roundup maker Monsanto is backed by the Trump administration, a legal position that is at odds with some allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement who want to rein in pesticide use. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate's production was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.
Dozens of MAHA activists and supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court on Monday for what they called a "People vs. Poison" rally to decry Monsanto's efforts to shield itself from lawsuits. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by the end of June.
Why This Matters:
The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether tens of thousands of Americans who believe they were harmed by Roundup can hold a major corporation accountable through state courts, or whether federal regulatory approval shields companies from liability even when significant scientific questions remain. The case highlights tensions between corporate protections and public health safeguards, particularly when regulatory review cycles span 15 years while scientific understanding evolves. With Bayer having already set aside $16 billion for settlements after facing more than 100,000 claims, the stakes are enormous for both the agrochemical industry and individuals seeking compensation for alleged harm. The outcome will shape the balance between federal regulatory authority and states' traditional role in protecting their residents from dangerous products, with implications for how corporations respond to emerging health concerns about their products.