U.S. Supreme Court to hear FIFRA case
On Jan. 16, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Monsanto Company v. Durnell to decide if the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act pre-empts state-level “failure-to-warn” claims when the Environmental Protection Agency has not required a cancer warning on Roundup.
The case, which is crucial for determining the fate of thousands of pending lawsuits, will be argued in spring 2026, with a decision not expected until July.
But the mere fact that it agreed to hear the case seems to have increased pressure on some plaintiff attorneys to push for a settlement. On March 4, Bayer announced that a Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement to resolve current and potential future state Roundup claims alleging non-Hodgkin lymphoma injuries. The motion was filed by leading plaintiff law firms representing the class.
Following preliminary approval, Bayer said, the next step in the legal process involves notice to potential class members and a 90-day period ending on June 4, during which class members can opt out or file objections. Once that phase is complete, the court will hold a fairness hearing on July 9 and decide whether to grant final approval of the settlement, which will be subject to potential appeals.
All lawsuits in Missouri brought by class settlement members are stayed, except for opt outs, until the Court reaches a final judgement on the class settlement.
Bill Dodero, senior vice president and general counsel of Bayer, said, “We are pleased the court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement, which is designed to resolve current and potential future Roundup claims relating to NHL. This is the first major step in putting this settlement into effect, and we remain confident that the long-term and well-financed class settlement plan, which is supported by leading plaintiffs’ law firms, warrants final approval by the court.”
Bayer said, “The expectation of Supreme Court review of the cross-cutting question in this litigation—whether state claims based on failure-to-warn theories are preempted by federal law—helped make this settlement possible. The Supreme Court case [itself] is unaffected by the settlement and is critical to resolving substantial outstanding damage awards subject to pending appeals, which are not covered by the settlement.”
It added, “The Supreme Court case is also critical to resolving the regulatory uncertainty which jeopardizes the availability of current and future agricultural innovations, with potentially severe consequences for farmers and the American food system.”
David Murray can be reached at [email protected].
