The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings as early as today that could shield Bayer from billions in liability for its Roundup weedkiller, even as a Missouri jury previously awarded $1.25 million to a litigant who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate. The justices are deciding whether a federal law regulating pesticides prevents Roundup users from suing Bayer in state court, a move that directly impacts the company's financial obligations and the ability of workers to seek redress for corporate negligence.
Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in the eighth year, faces billions of dollars in potential liability from ongoing lawsuits. The company has stated it may cease selling glyphosate to U.S. farmers if these lawsuits continue, a scenario major agricultural groups have warned would pose a “devastating risk to America’s food supply.”
Former President Donald Trump has publicly backed Bayer in this dispute, aligning state power with corporate interests. This support for corporate impunity has reportedly alarmed some of his “Make America Healthy Again” supporters.
Consolidating State Power
Beyond corporate protections, the Court is also poised to redefine presidential power, with a majority of justices appearing ready to side with Trump on the issue of presidential control over independent agencies. This decision could shift power from Congress to the White House and redefine how more than a dozen agencies operate, further centralizing executive authority.
In another assertion of executive power, Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term directing federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of babies born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. This order, widely viewed as a legal long shot, challenges the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee, aiming to restrict access to fundamental rights based on parentage.
The administration also seeks to end deportation protections for Syrians and Haitians, arguing that courts have no say in such decisions. Immigrant rights advocates are challenging these terminations, asserting the administration reached predetermined conclusions about the safety of these countries for migrants, prioritizing state control over human safety.
Furthermore, the administration aims to reinstate a migrant management practice at the U.S.-Mexico border to limit asylum seekers. Under this practice, federal officials would prevent undocumented migrants from physically setting foot on U.S. soil, thereby denying them the right to seek asylum under U.S. law. The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling requiring the government to process claims from people who reach a port of entry, solidifying the border as an imperial garrison against the dispossessed.
Undermining Collective Rights
The Court has already acted this year to undermine collective rights, severely limiting the scope of the landmark Voting Rights Act on April 29. This ruling made it harder for racial minorities to challenge electoral maps as discriminatory, immediately setting off a scramble among some GOP-controlled states to impose new maps more favorable to Republicans, consolidating political power for the ruling class.
Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance, are also pressing the court to scrap a federal limit on how much parties can spend in coordination with candidates. This cap, passed in 1974 in response to the Watergate scandal and upheld in 2001, aims to curb the influence of concentrated wealth in elections, a limit now under threat.
The Court has also delivered several setbacks to the LGBTQ+ community this year, including a March decision rejecting Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for young people. The court framed this as protecting the free speech rights of a Christian counselor, prioritizing individualistic interpretations over protections for vulnerable populations.
Justices are also expected to support efforts in more than half the states to prevent transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams, further codifying discrimination under the guise of state's rights.
Four years after expanding gun rights, the justices continue to apply a new “historical tradition” test, appearing likely to strike down a Hawaii law requiring gun owners to get permission before bringing a firearm into public private property. In another case, the court may loosen a federal law aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals, debating whether a Texas man’s regular use of marijuana is sufficient reason to criminally charge him for gun ownership.
While the justices seemed unlikely to let the president fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, this minor check on executive power stands in contrast to the broader trend of rulings that protect corporate interests and expand the state's capacity to control and suppress organized challenges to the existing distribution of power.