Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Glyphosate, Geofence Warrants, Migrant Protections

The U.S. Supreme Court will begin oral arguments Monday on a case that could determine whether federal law preempts state-level lawsuits alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer's Roundup herbicide, causes cancer. The administration will argue on behalf of Bayer, stating in an amicus brief that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act prevents failure-to-warn claims, to avoid a patchwork of state labeling requirements.

Multiple sources report that a ruling in Bayer's favor could end thousands of lawsuits against the company.

The case pits the administration against the Make America Healthy Again movement, a coalition that supported President Trump's election but opposes glyphosate due to health concerns. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. , a MAHA proponent, previously won a $290 million verdict in 2018 for a plaintiff in a similar case against Monsanto, acquired by Bayer that year.

MAHA advocate Kelly Ryerson criticized the administration's stance, saying the executive order boosting glyphosate production and support for Bayer at the Supreme Court show a disconnect with MAHA priorities.

“The combination of the executive order and going to bat for Bayer at the Supreme Court are really inexcusable.”

, defended the farm bill's provisions, which would prohibit states from imposing additional labeling requirements without EPA approval, stating it ensures science-based uniformity. Ryerson disputed this, calling the bill a liability shield for pesticide manufacturers and rejecting Thompson's characterization of MAHA concerns as emotional.

Democrats, including Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, see an opportunity to attract MAHA supporters, with Pingree noting rifts in the Republican coalition. Rep. , is co-leading an amendment with Pingree to remove the pesticide provision from the farm bill.

A rally is planned before Monday's arguments, with Pingree, Massie, and Ryerson attending to support the right to sue. The White House recently met with MAHA advocates to address frustrations, which Ryerson described as productive but insufficient if the court rules for Bayer.

Also on Monday, the court will hear Chatrie v.

United States, challenging the constitutionality of geofence warrants, which request location data from companies like Google for devices in a specific area and time. The Justice Department argues that such warrants do not violate the Fourth Amendment, as they involve public movements users opt to share, and require judicial approval through a three-step process.

Okello Chatrie contends that geofence warrants enable broad searches of millions of users' data without individualized suspicion, risking abuse at locations like churches or rallies. Google filed a brief urging the court to require more individualized warrants for location history data, without taking a side in the case.

The case follows the 2018 Carpenter ruling, which required probable cause for cell phone tower data.

Wednesday, the court will address the Trump administration's attempts to end temporary protected status for migrants from Haiti and Syria, affecting protections granted under former President Biden to over 1 million people from more than a dozen countries.

The administration seeks to make these migrants eligible for deportation again. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. previously ruled in 2020 that Trump's earlier attempt to end the DACA program violated procedural rules. Haitians and others from affected countries are closely watching the arguments, as the outcome could influence broader deportation protections.

m. Monday, with decisions expected by the end of June. The farm bill, including the disputed pesticide provisions, is expected in the House this week, potentially exacerbating tensions within the Republican coalition ahead of the 2026 midterms.