U.S. Supreme Court blocks state cancer warning lawsuits against Bayer over Roundup
On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal EPA approval of glyphosate preempts state failure-to-warn claims, effectively ending thousands of lawsuits alleging Roundup causes cancer. The decision reversed a Missouri plaintiff’s $1.25 million award and sent Bayer’s stock surging 17-20%. Dissenting justices argued Congress intended state warnings. Bayer will proceed with a $7.25 billion settlement for remaining claims, while environmental groups condemned the ruling.
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
US Supreme Court rejects Roundup cancer lawsuits, MAHA expresses betrayal
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a major lawsuit alleging that Bayer's Roundup weedkiller, containing glyphosate, causes cancer, effectively ruling in favor of the company's preemption argument that federal pesticide labeling laws override state-level cancer warning requirements. The decision, which also applies to related cases, has drawn a strong reaction from the advocacy group MAHA (Mothers Against Harmful Agriculture), who feel betrayed by the ruling. Multiple news outlets, including The Hill, The New York Times, and PBS, report on the legal outcome, the scientific debate over Roundup's health risks, and the financial implications for Bayer, with the Wall Street Journal noting the ruling gives Bayer new life and renews speculation about a potential breakup of the company. The decision is seen as a significant victory for Bayer and a setback for plaintiffs who blame the herbicide for their cancer diagnoses.
Top stories - Google NewsDespite Victory Before US Supreme Court, Many Glyphosate Lawsuits Against Bayer Continue
The US Supreme Court ruled that lack of warning labels cannot be used as a basis for glyphosate lawsuits against Bayer/Monsanto, but other claims such as product defects and negligence remain viable. Legal director George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety stated that tens of thousands of cases will continue based on state law claims not affected by the ruling. The decision did not address whether glyphosate causes cancer, but focused on EPA risk classifications under the Trump administration. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, faces approximately 67,000 pending cases. The company has previously paid $10 billion to settle lawsuits in 2020. A proposed class settlement covering other grounds remains uncertain. Glyphosate opponents declared 'the war is far from over,' while Bayer argued most lawsuits are based on warning label claims.
taz.de - taz.deSupreme Court ruling on Roundup highlights gap between law and science
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Bayer’s Monsanto, rejecting a lawsuit alleging that the weedkiller Roundup causes cancer. The decision highlights a confusing difference between legal standards and scientific evidence. While some scientific studies have linked glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, to cancer, the court found that federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims. The ruling effectively blocks many state-level lawsuits against Bayer, but does not settle the scientific debate over the health risks of the herbicide. Multiple news outlets, including The New York Times, NPR, PBS, and SCOTUSblog, have covered the decision and its implications.
Top stories - Google NewsSupreme Court Shields Bayer from State Lawsuits Over Glyphosate; Trump Offers Token Alternative Order
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that Bayer cannot be sued in state courts for failing to warn that glyphosate, a key ingredient in its RoundUp weedkiller, could cause cancer. The ruling overturns a $1.25 million state verdict and could dismiss thousands of similar cases, boosting Bayer's stock. Hours later, President Trump signed an executive order promoting pesticide alternatives but with no new funding or enforcement. The decision relies on Trump-era EPA policies that ban state warnings contradicting federal safety assessments, which currently deem glyphosate safe. However, the EPA is reassessing glyphosate safety, with a review due by October 1, potentially undermining the ruling's foundation. Allegations persist that key EPA-cited studies were ghostwritten by Monsanto employees.
The New RepublicTrump Administration Backs Bayer in Glyphosate Ruling, Angering MAHA Activists
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that Bayer cannot be sued in state courts for failing to warn that glyphosate, a key ingredient in RoundUp, may cause cancer. The decision overturns a $1.25 million verdict in a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma case and potentially dismisses thousands of similar suits. The Trump administration supported Bayer by banning states from adding warnings contradicting the EPA, which considers glyphosate safe. The EPA is reassessing glyphosate's safety by October 1, which could alter the ruling's basis. Meanwhile, President Trump signed an executive order promoting pesticide alternatives, but without funding or enforcement. Allegations persist that EPA-backed research was ghostwritten by Monsanto. The article examines tensions between Republican support for agribusiness and the MAHA (Make American Healthy Again) voter base.
The New RepublicTrump Administration Fully Embraces Glyphosate Despite MAHA Backlash
The article reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's 7–2 ruling that Bayer cannot be sued in state courts for failing to warn that glyphosate (RoundUp's key ingredient) may cause cancer, overturning a $1.25 million verdict. The ruling, which Bayer's stock rose on, effectively dismisses thousands of similar lawsuits. The Trump administration supported Bayer by having the EPA ban states from issuing their own warnings on glyphosate, citing federal safety determinations. Meanwhile, Trump signed an executive order on pesticide alternatives, but with no new funding or enforcement. The EPA is reassessing glyphosate safety by October 1, and allegations have emerged that key safety research was ghostwritten by Monsanto. The article highlights tension between Republican ties to Big Ag and the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement's opposition to glyphosate.
The New RepublicSupreme Court Ruling in Monsanto Case Deals Blow to Trial Lawyers
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Monsanto v. Durnell, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, rejecting a failure-to-warn claim linking Roundup weedkiller to cancer. The ruling deals a significant setback to the plaintiffs' bar and the mass tort litigation industry. The Environmental Protection Agency and international regulators have consistently found glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, not likely carcinogenic to humans. Despite this, approximately 200,000 cases had been filed against Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), leading to multibillion-dollar settlements. The case originated in St. Louis, a jurisdiction branded a 'judicial hellhole' by tort reform advocates. The decision is expected to curb future speculative lawsuits, reducing the 'tort tax' that costs over 2% of U.S. GDP. However, the opinion argues that tort costs continue to grow faster than inflation despite reform efforts.
City JournalA Bad Day for Trial Lawyers, Inc.
The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision in Monsanto v. Durnell, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, represents a significant setback for mass tort litigation against Bayer's Roundup weedkiller. The ruling rejects 'failure to warn' claims that alleged glyphosate causes cancer, despite EPA and global regulatory consensus finding it not likely carcinogenic. The decision curbs the massive litigation wave that had led Bayer to pay over $10 billion in settlements for approximately 200,000 claims. The article criticizes the U.S. tort system as costly, noting direct tort costs exceed 2% of GDP.
City JournalSupreme Court shields Bayer from Roundup failure-to-warn lawsuits
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, sided with Bayer, blocking thousands of lawsuits that alleged the company failed to warn consumers that its Roundup weedkiller could cause cancer. The ruling holds that federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims because the EPA has determined glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer when used as directed, and approved a label without a cancer warning. The decision stems from a case brought by Missouri resident John Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after years of using Roundup and had won a $1.25 million jury award. Environmental groups and plaintiff attorneys denounced the ruling, while Bayer and agricultural groups praised it. Despite the ruling, Bayer plans to proceed with a $7.25 billion class-action settlement to resolve many remaining claims. The company has also sought state-level liability protections in North Dakota, Georgia, and Kentucky.
Fortune | FORTUNESupreme Court Quashes Scientifically Bogus Lawsuits Against Roundup Herbicide
In a landmark 7-2 decision on June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto, the manufacturer of the herbicide Roundup, effectively blocking tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging the weed killer causes cancer. The case, Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, originated from a 2019 lawsuit by John Durnell, who claimed his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma resulted from using Roundup for 20 years. The Court overturned a Missouri state jury's $1.25 million award to Durnell, finding that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) safety determination that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that federal law requires Monsanto to use labels without a cancer warning unless the EPA approves a change. The decision also notes that numerous international safety agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority and Canada's Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, have found the herbicide safe when used as directed, contrasting with a contested 2015 IARC monograph classifying it as 'probably carcinogenic.'
Reason.comUS Supreme Court Rules for Bayer in Glyphosate Jurisdictional Dispute
The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bayer, finding that federal EPA approval of glyphosate preempts state-level consumer protection lawsuits requiring additional cancer warnings. The decision, which did not address whether glyphosate causes cancer, struck down a Missouri case where a plaintiff with non-Hodgkin lymphoma had won $1 million in damages after using Roundup for 20 years. The ruling removes the legal basis for thousands of similar lawsuits against Bayer, which bought Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018. Bayer's stock surged 20% on the news. The two dissenting justices argued that EPA approval does not absolve manufacturers of general duty to warn. Environmentalists warn glyphosate threatens biodiversity, while WHO's cancer agency classified it as 'probably carcinogenic' in 2015.
taz.de - taz.deUS Supreme Court Rules for Bayer in Glyphosate Cancer Warning Dispute
The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bayer in a landmark glyphosate case, deciding that federal EPA approval requirements preempt state-level consumer warning laws. The ruling effectively strips the legal basis for thousands of lawsuits alleging that Bayer's Roundup weedkiller caused cancer. The case did not address whether glyphosate is carcinogenic, but focused on jurisdictional authority. The decision overturned a Missouri jury award of over $1 million to a plaintiff with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer's stock surged 20% to a four-month high. The company had acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion and previously paid $10 billion to settle many lawsuits. Environmentalists continue to warn about glyphosate's potential cancer risks and harm to biodiversity.
taz.de - taz.deBayer Wins Landmark Glyphosate Case Before US Supreme Court; Shares Surge
On June 25, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled decisively in favor of Bayer in the long-running glyphosate legal dispute. The Court held that federal approval requirements (specifically the EPA's classification of glyphosate as non-carcinogenic) preempt state law claims regarding inadequate cancer warnings. This ruling undercuts the basis for thousands of current and future lawsuits against Bayer over its herbicide. The company expects litigation to be significantly curtailed. Following the announcement, Bayer's stock surged 17 percent on the Frankfurt exchange. The decision marks a major victory for the German pharmaceutical and agricultural group after nearly a decade of legal battles in the United States.
Nachrichten - WELTBayer Wins Glyphosate Case at US Supreme Court; Stock Surges
The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bayer in the long-running legal dispute over the health effects of the pesticide glyphosate. The court decided that federal approval requirements take precedence over state laws, undermining thousands of lawsuits alleging inadequate cancer warnings. Bayer has always argued that the EPA classifies glyphosate as non-carcinogenic. Following the ruling, Bayer's stock rose by 17 percent. The company stated that current and future lawsuits are likely to be dismissed, marking a decisive victory in the billion-dollar litigation.
Nachrichten - WELTSupreme Court sides with Monsanto over cancer warning on Roundup labels
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal pesticide labeling law preempts state lawsuits against Monsanto (Bayer) alleging failure to warn about cancer risks from Roundup. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the EPA's approval of Roundup's label without a cancer warning prevents state claims, reversing a Missouri court decision awarding over $1 million to plaintiff John Durnell and effectively ending thousands of similar state cases. Justice Jackson, joined by Gorsuch, dissented, arguing the law also requires labels to warn of all relevant dangers. The decision shifts the fight to Congress, where Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced she would introduce legislation to remove liability protections for pesticide companies. The ruling is expected to complicate farm bill negotiations.
Roll CallSupreme Court sides with Monsanto over cancer warning
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision on June 25, 2026, blocked thousands of state lawsuits against Monsanto over cancer warnings on its Roundup weed killer. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act gives the EPA full control over pesticide labels, and since the EPA approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning, state law claims for failing to warn are preempted. The decision reverses a Missouri state court win for plaintiff John Durnell and effectively ends numerous similar claims. Dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued Congress intended pesticide makers to label all relevant dangers. The ruling sets up a legislative battle in Congress, as the farm bill currently lacks uniform labeling provisions. The case is Monsanto Co. v. Durnell.
Roll Call