Latest News

US Supreme Court splits over Bayer's Roundup lawsuits

The Supreme Court of the?U.S. The Supreme Court appeared divided on Monday in its decision to dismiss thousands of lawsuits against Bayer AG, which accused the company of failing to warn users of the cancer-causing active ingredient of Roundup.

The German drugmaking company and crop science company appealed a Missouri state court jury verdict awarding $1.25million to a man named John Durnell, who claimed he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's?lymphoma following a?years exposure to Roundup glyphosate.

Paul Clement, representing Bayer, told them that the federal law that governs pesticides prevents failure-to warn claims such as Durnell's, which are brought under state laws, from being heard in court.

The German company that makes drugs and crops has stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not cancerous and has approved their product labels without warning.

"A Missouri Jury imposed a warning about cancer that the EPA did not require." Clement stated that the additional requirement was preempted.

'CRIPPLING LIABILITY'

Clement warned that the United States should not have a patchwork standard.

"Congress wanted uniformity in the safety warnings that appear on a pesticide label. Clement stated that ignoring Congress's clear directive would lead to crippling liability, and undermine the interests for farmers who rely on pesticides registered by the federal government for their livelihood.

According to the company, more than 100,000 plaintiffs filed cases in U.S. federal and state courts alleging that Roundup causes cancer. The company has stated that a Supreme Court decision in its favor would largely end the Roundup litigation.

FIFRA is a federal law that governs the sale of pesticides, including their labeling. States are prohibited from imposing different or additional requirements. The law prohibits the sale and labeling of pesticides with "misbranded labels" that do not provide adequate warnings to protect human health and the environment.

Clement was questioned by Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch about why state court lawsuits were in conflict with federal regulations.

How would it be in conflict with FIFRA if state tort suits could do the same? Gorsuch asked.

The administration of Republican President Donald Trump sided with Bayer.

Sarah Harris, an attorney for the Justice Department arguing on behalf of the administration, was asked by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts if states had any legal recourse in case new information about harm came to light, while federal regulators weighed whether or not to issue new guidance.

"During that long process, can the states do anything in response to any information that indicates that there may be a risk not listed on the label?" Roberts asked.

Harris emphasized the dangers of a departure from a standard national.

Harris stated that if 50 states were to label their products differently - Iowa saying that this product may cause cancer, California saying that it is certain to cause cancer and some other state saying that this product does not cause cancer at all - this would undermine the uniformity in labeling.

Roberts replied, "I understand that." Roberts responded, "I appreciate that."

Bayer purchased Roundup in 2018 as part of the $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto, an agrochemicals company. Bayer removed?glyphosate (the herbicide) from the consumer version of Roundup after a 'torrent of litigation' prompted the company to remove it.

A PROPOSED SOLVENT

Bayer, facing billions in potential liability and tens thousands of lawsuits that were pending or planned for the future, announced in February its proposed $7.25billion settlement. According to the company, the settlement will not apply to claims arising from appeals that are pending or outside of the deal. It said that the settlement would not affect claims arising from pending appeals or outside of the deal.

Durnell's attorneys said that despite Roundup's registration by the EPA, the label could still be challenged for being misbranded. Durnell's lawyers also claimed that the claims of Durnell are not preempted by Missouri state law, which requires products to adequately warn consumers about dangers.

Durnell, diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (a cancer that begins in white blood cells), was attributed to the disease by his 1996 exposure to Roundup. According to court documents, Durnell was the "spray man" for a St. Louis neighborhood association, spraying Roundup in local parks and killing weeds without wearing protective gear.

In 2023 a jury found in Durnell's favor, and in 2025 an appeals court of the state upheld this verdict.

By the end of June, a Supreme Court decision is expected.

(source: Reuters)