Supreme Court Divided on Blocking Roundup Cancer Lawsuits Against Bayer

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case that could determine whether thousands of lawsuits against Bayer over its Roundup weedkiller can proceed. Justices appeared divided on whether federal pesticide regulations preempt state laws allowing failure-to-warn claims.

The case stems from a Missouri man's lawsuit alleging Roundup caused his cancer, with broader implications for billions in potential liability. Bayer, which owns Roundup maker Monsanto, argues that state claims are barred because the Environmental Protection Agency approved labels without cancer warnings.

The agency has determined glyphosate, Roundup's key ingredient, is not likely carcinogenic when used as directed. Bayer's position is supported by the administration, which told the court that federal law requires uniformity in labeling.

The lawsuit involves John Durnell, who used Roundup for over 20 years as his neighborhood association's spray operator in St. Louis. A jury awarded him $1.25 million in 2023, finding Monsanto failed to warn of cancer risks. This is one of thousands of similar cases, including some with multibillion-dollar verdicts.

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic in 2015. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has rejected mandating cancer warnings. Bayer has set aside $16 billion to settle claims and proposed a $7.25 billion class action settlement this year.

“EPA registers pesticides only if EPA approves their labels as adequate to protect health. Federal law then requires manufacturers to keep using that label.”

Kavanaugh questioned whether allowing state claims undermines federal uniformity in labeling. He asked if varying state requirements could lead to inconsistent liability. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested state lawsuits might respond faster to new safety information than federal regulators.

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked why states can ban hazardous products but not allow residents to sue over harms. Attorneys for Durnell argued that federal law does not prohibit adding state-required warnings and that Environmental Protection Agency approvals are not a safe harbor from liability.

Bayer's attorney stated that Congress intended uniformity under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Durnell's side countered that companies cannot sell mislabeled products and that courts can enforce this.

Bayer has stopped using glyphosate in U.S. residential Roundup products and warned it may withdraw it from agricultural markets if lawsuits continue. Agricultural groups stated this could harm the food supply. The company has lobbied states to pass laws barring new cases, with some success.

Environmental groups and activists rallied outside the court, protesting efforts to shield Bayer from lawsuits. Protesters, including retirees Linda and Jon Martin from California, held signs reading “Stop poisoning the US” and expressed disappointment in the administration's support for Bayer.

“If they’re fighting to get rid of liability, they know they must be liable.”

The Environmental Protection Agency's latest glyphosate review is overdue, following a 2022 court ruling that it inadequately considered cancer risks. Advocates can challenge agency decisions, and states can ban products independently. A proposed farm bill in Congress may include provisions limiting pesticide lawsuits, opposed by some lawmakers.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule by June's end. The case highlights debates over pesticide regulation, with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy stating glyphosate causes cancer while acknowledging an executive order boosting its production for food security.

Farmers worry about impacts on agriculture amid existing pressures.