Supreme Court to Hear Bayer Case That Could Block Thousands of Glyphosate Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will hear Monsanto v. Durnell this term, a closely watched case that could dramatically reshape how — and whether — people harmed by glyphosate-based herbicides can seek compensation.
The case centers on whether state-level “failure-to-warn” lawsuits are preempted when the Environmental Protection Agency has approved a pesticide’s label. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, argues that EPA approval should shield it from state claims alleging the company failed to warn users about cancer risks linked to glyphosate.
It is important to be precise about what this case would — and would not — do.
A ruling in Bayer’s favor would not create a sweeping, industry-wide liability shield for all pesticides. Nor would it rewrite federal pesticide law outright. However, legal analysts expect such a ruling could effectively invalidate thousands of pending and future claims related specifically to glyphosate, cutting off one of the few remaining avenues for accountability.
The financial stakes are enormous. Bayer has already paid out billions in settlements tied to Roundup-related cancer claims, and analysts estimate the company could avoid as much as $10 billion in future liability if the Court sides with it.
Oral arguments are expected this spring, with a decision anticipated by early summer. The ruling will determine whether tens of thousands of glyphosate-related claims move forward — or quietly disappear — and whether state courts remain a viable venue for accountability when federally approved products cause harm.
