Supreme Court to Hear Bayer’s Appeal on Roundup Cancer Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether federal law prevents states from requiring cancer warnings on Roundup labels.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from Bayer, the agrochemical manufacturer, regarding whether federal law preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims related to its Roundup weedkiller. Simultaneously, Bayer has proposed a multibillion-dollar settlement to resolve tens of thousands of pending lawsuits. The cases allege that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and that the company failed to warn consumers about potential health risks.

Litigation Background

Bayer faces approximately 200,000 Roundup-related claims, primarily from residential users. The lawsuits allege that Bayer failed to provide adequate warnings about a potential link between glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, and cancer. Bayer acquired Monsanto, Roundup's original manufacturer, in 2018.

The company disputes the claim that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed, and the federally approved label for Roundup does not include a cancer warning.

Bayer has ceased using glyphosate in Roundup sold for residential lawn and garden use in the United States. Glyphosate remains an ingredient in agricultural products designed for use with genetically modified seeds resistant to the weedkiller.

Supreme Court Case

Case Origin

The specific case the high court is reviewing involves plaintiff John Durnell, who sued Monsanto in Missouri state court in 2019. Durnell alleged that 20 years of exposure to Roundup, including application at a community garden in St. Louis, caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A Missouri jury awarded Durnell over $1 million, finding that the company failed to provide adequate warnings under Missouri law.

Legal Question

The Supreme Court will determine whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims. The justices will not rule on whether glyphosate causes cancer.

• Bayer's position: Federal pesticide laws should prevent states from adopting additional product labeling requirements. The company argues that the EPA's approval of Roundup's label, which does not include a cancer warning, should invalidate state court claims.
• Plaintiff's position: State law requires adequate product warnings, and juries should determine whether such warnings are sufficient.
• Federal government's position: The U.S. Solicitor General, representing the Trump administration, supported Bayer, stating that the EPA has authority over label changes and state law must yield.

Oral Arguments

During oral arguments on Monday, justices questioned both sides:

"Could state action be beneficial if the federal government moves slowly on new safety information?" — Chief Justice John Roberts

"There is a 15-year gap between EPA re-registrations, during which new scientific evidence may emerge." — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

Proposed Settlement

Bayer has proposed a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve most of the approximately 200,000 pending claims. The agreement was filed in St. Louis Circuit Court in Missouri, where Bayer's North America crop science division is based. The settlement requires court approval.

Settlement Terms

• Funds totaling up to $7.25 billion would be distributed through annual payments into a special fund for up to 21 years.
• Individual payouts would vary based on factors including the plaintiff's exposure to Roundup, age at diagnosis, and severity of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Estimated average payouts:

Reactions to Settlement

Attorney Christopher Seeger, representing current claimants, stated that the agreement aims to ensure compensation for current and future patients.

"Many of my clients might opt out, considering the proposed payouts 'exceedingly too small.'" — Attorney Matt Clement, representing approximately 280 plaintiffs

Regulatory and Legislative Context

The Trump administration previously supported Bayer's position regarding federal preemption.

North Dakota and Georgia have passed laws designed to shield pesticide manufacturers from state failure-to-warn lawsuits when their products comply with federal labeling requirements.

Bayer has indicated that mounting legal costs have threatened its ability to continue selling Roundup in U.S. agricultural markets. The company has allocated $16 billion to settle existing cases and has sought to influence states to enact laws prohibiting such lawsuits.

The timeline for Supreme Court arguments—whether in the spring or at the start of the next court term in October—remains undetermined.