politics
Supreme Court Divided on Blocking Roundup Cancer Lawsuits Against Bayer
The Supreme Court appeared divided during oral arguments on whether to block thousands of lawsuits claiming Bayer's Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. The case involves federal preemption of state failure-to-warn claims, with the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of labels without cancer warnings at the center.
Usa TodayAudio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
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.
