(WASHINGTON D.C.) — On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that most lawsuits claiming Roundup’s maker failed to warn users about cancer risks are blocked under federal law, handing Bayer a sweeping legal victory after nearly a decade of multibillion-dollar litigation.
The decision in Monsanto v. Durnell held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims when the Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the product and not required a cancer warning on its label. The ruling is expected to result in the dismissal of thousands of pending cases. About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been filed against Bayer, which acquired Roundup’s original manufacturer Monsanto in 2018.
The dispute centered on Missouri resident John Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than two decades of using Roundup on parks in his St. Louis neighborhood as a volunteer “spray guy.” A jury awarded him $1.25 million after finding Monsanto failed to warn him about potential cancer risks. Bayer challenged the verdict, arguing that because the EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning — after determining glyphosate is “not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed” — the company is required to follow federal standards, not conflicting state laws.
Agricultural groups broadly welcomed the decision as critical to preserving access to one of farming’s most widely used herbicides.
“Today’s opinion provides important clarity for farmers and the entire agricultural industry, which rely on a predictable, science-based regulatory system to deliver the tools needed to feed, fuel, and clothe the country,” said Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of the Modern Ag Alliance. “Farmers are already carrying enough uncertainty, from tight margins to rising costs, and they should not have to question whether the tools they rely on will remain available.”
Blake Hurst, a third-generation corn and soybean farmer from Westboro, Missouri, and former Missouri Farm Bureau president, called the ruling welcome news. “Those federal labels, and the rigorous science behind them, are what we trust to farm safely and feed the country,” he said. “Today’s decision protects our access to the tools that let us care for our soil, protect our crops, and keep food affordable.”
The Agricultural Retailers Association said on X that the ruling protects the entire agricultural supply chain. “When ag retailers and applicators comply fully with an EPA-approved label, they should not be punished for following the law. The Court’s ruling ensures that pesticide safety decisions remain grounded in science, exactly as Congress intended when it passed FIFRA.”
The American Soybean Association, which joined an amicus brief in the case, said the ruling ends a “burdensome regulatory patchwork” that had created confusion among farmers by conflicting with EPA-approved labels. “For decades, the EPA, along with regulatory authorities around the world, has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk when used as directed,” the group said.
“This is great news for all farmers in the country,” said Jed Bower, Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) president. “Today’s decision reaffirms that FIFRA is the law of the land and states cannot add undue and unproven requirements not backed by science.”
“This decision is a win for farmers and the broader agricultural community,” said Sam Kieffer, National Association of Wheat Growers CEO. “Farmers depend on clear, predictable, science-based regulations and continued access to effective crop protection tools. Today’s decision reaffirms that EPA’s label, based on a rigorous process of scientific review, is the law. NAWG continues to support a regulatory system grounded in sound science, transparency, and consistency.”
However, not everyone in agriculture viewed the outcome as a win. Farm Action, a farmer advocacy organization, said the ruling weakens protections for farmers, farmworkers, and the general public.
“This ruling weakens protections for farmers, farmworkers, and the public, and it sets a dangerous precedent for other corporations seeking similar immunity,” said Farm Action President Angela Huffman. “No corporation should be allowed to use its market power or political influence to put itself above the law.” Farm Action has argued that farmers are not as dependent on Bayer’s products as the company claims, and that other crop protection options exist. The group had filed an amicus brief in the case making that argument.
In a statement to CBS News, Bayer called the decision “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation.”
And despite the ruling, Bayer said it plans to proceed with its proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement, intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.
