Supreme Court to consider Roundup immunity
The United States Supreme Court announced Jan. 16 that it will consider whether or not Monsanto’s Roundup should be immune from state lawsuits alleging harm from its federally-approved label not warning of potential cancer risks.
The case the Supreme Court accepted, Monsanto v. Durnell, involves momentous questions of federal pre-emption of state law. Lower courts have split on the issue. The financial stakes are enormous. Getting the court to hear the case has been a top agenda item for Bayer and a key part of its strategy to rescue its glyphosate business from the billions of dollars of adverse court judgments that have hurt the company’s stock price and threatened to deprive farmers of a key weed-fighting tool.
The case has been making its way up the ladder of appeals courts since 2019. The plaintiff, John Durnell, claims that his non-Hodgkins lymphoma is due to glyphosate exposure. There are an estimated 60,000 pending cases related to glyphosate exposure. If the court rules in Bayer’s favor, it will invalidate billions of dollars’ worth of judgments. Arguments are expected in April 2026. Bayer’s stock price jumped at the news.
“The Supreme Court decision to take the case is good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. “It’s also an important step in our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain this litigation. It is time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements.”
He added that every leading regulator worldwide has concluded that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely.
The plaintiff argues that Monsanto’s “failure to warn” consumers of alleged risks of glyphosate on Roundup’s labeling exposed him and others to harm. Bayer (which bought Monsanto in 2018) argues the Environmental Protection Agency authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act found Monsanto’s Roundup product line and its active ingredient, glyphosate, do not cause cancer in humans. FIFRA prohibits Monsanto from making any substantive change to an EPA-approved label unless it first obtains the agency’s permission.
In December, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer sided with Bayer, submitting a brief agreeing with the company the Supreme Court should hear the case, resolve the circuit court split and rule in the company’s favor. In his brief, Sauer argued that upholding Durnell’s claims would allow juries to ignore expert scientific decisions made by the EPA regarding the safety of glyphosate, saying, “EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans, and the agency has repeatedly approved Roundup labels that did not contain cancer warnings….This Court’s intervention is warranted to give FIFRA’s preemption provision its proper force.”
Ag groups applaud decision
Agriculture groups, many of which submitted petitions back in May, strongly urged the court to take up the case and applauded the decision. The American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Wheat Growers and American Soybean Association have all argued in briefs that FIFRA regulations should not be subject to challenge from state-level regulations.
“Cotton producers depend on EPA’s science-based evaluations and labeling to guide responsible use while placing the highest priority on pesticide safety,” said Patrick Johnson, chairman of the National Cotton Council. “EPA, as well as other leading regulatory bodies, have consistently found that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk when used as directed. Allowing individual states to impose conflicting, misleading label requirements, contrary to FIFRA, would undermine the uniform regulatory system that farmers and consumers rely on.”
David Murray can be reached at [email protected].
