Supreme Court Announces It Will Hear Roundup Lawsuit

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer to block thousands of state lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people that its popular weedkiller Roundup could cause cancer.

The justices will consider whether the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of the Roundup weedkiller without a cancer warning should rule out the state court claims.

The Trump administration has weighed in on Bayer's behalf, reversing the Biden administration's position and putting it at odds with some supporters of the Make America Healthy Again agenda who oppose giving the company the legal immunity it seeks.

Some studies associate Roundup's key ingredient, glyphosate, with cancer, although the EPA has said it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed.

Bayer disputes the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases. At the same time, the company has tried to persuade states to pass laws barring the lawsuits. Georgia and North Dakota have done so.

The high court will take up a case from Missouri, in which a jury awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis.

The Supreme Court in 2022 declined to hear a similar claim from Bayer in a California case that awarded more than $86 million to a married couple.  But Germany-based Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, contends the Supreme Court should intervene now because lower courts have issued conflicting rulings. In 2024, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bayer's favor.

Bayer faces about 181,000 Roundup claims, mostly from residential users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. for the residential lawn and garden market. But glyphosate remains in agricultural products. It's designed to be used with genetically modified seeds, including corn, soybeans and cotton, that resist the weedkiller's deadly effect. It allows farmers to produce more while conserving the soil by tilling it less.

Bayer said it expects a decision on the merits during the Court's 2026 session, which ends in June.

"The Supreme Court decision to take the case is good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity," said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. "It's also an important step in our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain this litigation. It is time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements." Every leading regulator worldwide has concluded that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely.

The Supreme Court previously called for the views of the Solicitor General, who submitted a brief in December on behalf of the United States Government agreeing with the company that the Court should hear the case, resolve the circuit split and rule in the company's favor.

EDITOR’S TAKE:

Roundup has been a controversial product for as long as I can remember. Monsanto was plagued by lawsuits well before it sold out to Bayer. Many experts, including the federal EPA, have found it not to be a carcinogen when used properly and, therefore, does not require a warning label.

Part of my background involved working with agricultural retailers and regulators at EPA. I can tell you, with all the safety assumptions used by EPA for approving a crop protection label, they appear to err on the side of human safety by a magnitude of many thousands. That said, I am not a scientist nor a lawyer, so the Supreme Court will have the final say. In the meantime, farmers/ranchers have invested heavily in cropping systems and genetics that utilize glyphosate as the primary basis for controlling weeds and triggering crop traits. If the ruling somehow bans or goes against Bayer, farmers will be pushed into a difficult corner going forward.

This is the type of issue that could have a very dramatic impact on farmers/ranchers in your area. Many of them could be forced to completely alter their cropping systems, which could be a very expensive venture. But let’s cross that bridge if, or when, we get there. For now, keep promoting your CAD membership and what that means to those farmers/ranchers in your area.