Supreme Court shields Bayer-Monsanto in major Roundup ruling
The Supreme Court has sided with Bayer-Monsanto in a major Roundup case, throwing out a $1.25 million verdict awarded to Missouri resident John Durnell, who alleged that years of glyphosate exposure caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled that federal pesticide-labeling law preempts state failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has approved a product label without a cancer warning. Bayer called the ruling a win for regulatory clarity, while critics say it shields pesticide manufacturers from accountability and leaves injured consumers with fewer paths to legal recourse.
The decision could affect tens of thousands of Roundup lawsuits and was immediately welcomed by investors, with Bayer’s stock jumping after the ruling.
For critics, the decision is not only a blow to cancer plaintiffs. It is also a warning about federal preemption: when a captured or slow-moving federal agency declines to require a warning, states, juries, and injured consumers may have far less power to hold manufacturers accountable.
Read more:
