The Supreme Court appeared divided Monday on whether to grant corporate immunity to Bayer, the global agrochemical manufacturer, from thousands of lawsuits alleging its Roundup weedkiller caused cancer, despite multibillion-dollar verdicts already awarded to victims. The case arrived before the justices following a surge of litigation against Bayer, which owns Roundup maker Monsanto.
The specific case before the court was filed by John Durnell, a Missouri man. Durnell’s lawsuit stated he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as his neighborhood association’s “spray guy,” using Roundup on parks. A jury found the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. This is one of thousands of similar cases, including other multibillion-dollar damage awards.
Scientific bodies remain at odds regarding 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 contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. The EPA approved a label without a cancer warning.
Bayer argues it cannot be sued under state law because federal regulators have found Roundup likely does not cause cancer. The company maintains it is required to follow these federal standards, not the state laws under which Durnell and others have filed suit.
Who Profits, Who Pays
Bayer has set aside $16 billion to settle cases and proposed a major settlement earlier this year, indicating the substantial financial liability it faces. Simultaneously, the company has actively sought to persuade states to pass laws barring new cases, with a few states agreeing to these corporate demands.
Bayer has contended with over 100,000 Roundup claims, predominantly from home users. The company has ceased using glyphosate in Roundup products sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market. Bayer has also stated it might consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if the lawsuits persist.
The American Farm Bureau Federation, in court documents, claimed that removing glyphosate from the market would pose an “immediate, devastating risk to America’s food supply” for the industry.
The State's Role
The Trump administration has formally backed Monsanto’s legal position, aligning the executive branch with the corporate interest in federal preemption over state-level consumer protection. This legal stance is at odds with some allies in the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.
Several Supreme Court justices expressed concerns that facing liability under "a thicket of different state laws" could make operations "tough for companies" and "undermine the purpose of federal regulations." Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan both voiced these concerns.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether waiting for EPA review, which occurs every 15 years, effectively "ties the hands of state courts." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that a 15-year review period can be "a relatively long period in terms of scientific advancement."
Durnell’s lawyers countered that federal law does not prevent Bayer from adding a warning about possible cancer risk to its products under state law.
Organized Resistance and Liberal Inadequacy
Dozens of MAHA activists and supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court on Monday for a “People vs. Poison” rally. They decried Monsanto’s efforts to shield itself from lawsuits, highlighting organized resistance to corporate power.
Environmental groups assert that Bayer’s objective is to keep juries out of these lawsuits, citing the company’s losses in state courts.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, a prominent figure in the MAHA movement, has repeatedly stated that glyphosate causes cancer. However, Kennedy also recognized an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate’s production as "necessary for food supply and national security reasons," illustrating the contradictions inherent in managing capital's demands within the existing political framework.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by the end of June.