WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the makers of the weedkiller Roundup and is expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging they failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.
The case came before the judge after a wave of litigation, including a multibillion-dollar judgment against global pesticide manufacturer Bayer. Bayer is a Germany-based company that acquired Roundup in 2018 when it acquired original producer Monsanto.
The decision is a victory for President Donald Trump’s administration, but could be politically difficult as allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement want to curb pesticide use.
In a 7-2 decision, the high court ruled that the company could not face a failure to warn lawsuit in state court because federal regulations do not require warning labels because the link to cancer is low.
The decision is “good for scientists, farmers and industry whose innovation depends on regulatory clarity,” Bayer said in a statement. “After nearly a decade of legal battles, this should help significantly curb Roundup lawsuits.”
Bayer agrees to $7.25 billion settlement over thousands of Roundup cancer lawsuits
Bayer said the ruling should dismiss pending litigation involving allegations of failure to warn, but the company said it plans to move forward with a proposed $7.25 billion class action settlement aimed at resolving many of the remaining claims.
The ruling was condemned by environmental groups and lawyers representing people who believe they were harmed by Roundup.
“This Supreme Court decision unfairly closes the court’s door on Americans who have gotten sick from pesticides,” said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed to represent plaintiffs in the settlement. But he said the settlement would still allow some people to receive compensation.
The decision is “a tragic setback for public health and environmental health,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of the health and environmental group Beyond Pesticides.
Sick gardener wins $1 million
The Supreme Court lawsuit was filed by Missouri resident John Darnell. He developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after working for more than 20 years as a “sprayer” for a neighborhood association that used Roundup in historic St. Louis area parks.
The jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about the possible cancer risks and ordered him to pay $1.25 million. This is one of thousands of similar lawsuits involving billions of dollars in damages.
Everything you need to know about RFK Jr., MAHA, and “Griffogate”
There is still a heated debate about cancer and glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it is unlikely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.
The agency approved the label without the cancer warning, but Bayer contends it must follow federal standards, not the state law that Darnell and others sued. His attorney, Ashley Keller, said the ruling could still allow other lawsuits alleging flaws in the way the product was designed.
Bayer promises multi-billion dollar settlement
Bayer, which disputes the cancer claims, previously set aside $16 billion in settlements and earlier this year proposed a $7.25 billion class action settlement. A federal judge recently ruled that the settlement will be heard in Missouri state court, where many of the lawsuits are filed.
At the same time, the company is trying to persuade states to pass laws that would shield it from liability in failure to warn cases, and three states have agreed.
About 200,000 Roundup-related complaints have been filed against Bayer, most of them by home users. The use of glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market has been discontinued.
The company has said it may have to consider removing glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if the lawsuit continues. Agricultural industry groups say Roundup is important to shore up the food supply.
“Today’s decision protects our access to the tools to care for our soils, protect our crops, and provide affordable food for your and my families,” said Blake Hurst, a corn and soybean farmer and former president of the Missouri Farm Bureau.
Court ruling goes against MAHA movement
The pesticide created a rift between the government and members of the MAHA movement, led by Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy, who were unhappy with an executive order aimed at increasing production of glyphosate.
President Kennedy acknowledged that the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons, but reiterated that glyphosate causes cancer.
Some health advocates argue that the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of glyphosate-based herbicides is based on limited information and that a state court case has found further evidence to the contrary.
“The fact that the EPA has approved a pesticide label does not mean the product is safe, and it should not provide a shield for companies that fail to warn about cancer risks, neurological damage, or other serious dangers,” said Patty Goldman, senior attorney at the environmental law group Earthjustice.
— Lindsey Whitehart and David A. Reeve
Reeve reported from Jefferson City, Missouri.
