After years of high-profile verdicts and billions paid or set aside to resolve claims, the long-running Roundup litigation is headed to the nation’s highest court. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal in a case that could reshape how thousands of Roundup lawsuits are handled nationwide.
At the center of the dispute is whether federal pesticide regulations and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) label approvals override or preempt state law claims alleging that Roundup failed to warn consumers about cancer risks.
How the Roundup Case Reached the Supreme Court
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, argues that because the EPA approved Roundup’s labeling without a cancer warning, state juries should not be allowed to impose liability for failing to include one. The company argues that allowing failure-to-warn claims creates conflicting standards: one set by federal regulators and another imposed by state courts through jury verdicts.
Lower courts have repeatedly rejected that argument, allowing juries to hear evidence and award damages to people who allege that long-term Roundup exposure contributed to serious illnesses, including blood cancers and immune system disorders, with symptoms that may not appear until long after exposure has ended. These long-term health concerns are what led to thousands of Roundup lawsuits nationwide, ultimately setting the stage for the legal questions now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cases do not automatically land before the Supreme Court. Instead, a case typically reaches the justices after moving through trial courts and appellate courts, often following conflicting rulings or unresolved federal questions.
In Bayer’s petition to the Court to hear Monsanto v. Durnell, it argues that conflicting rulings among federal circuit courts warrant review and that only the Supreme Court can definitively resolve whether federal pesticide law preempts state warning claims. The Court’s decision to accept the appeal signals that at least four justices agreed the legal question warranted review.
The Supreme Court has previously declined to hear Roundup cases, including high-profile appeals in 2022 that left large verdicts intact. Those denials were widely viewed as setbacks for Bayer’s effort to end the litigation through a single nationwide ruling.
This new appeal, however, gives the company another opportunity to press its preemption argument. Preemption is a constitutional principle rooted in the Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal law can override state law in certain circumstances. In product liability cases, companies often raise preemption as a defense, arguing that compliance with federal regulations should shield them from state-level lawsuits.
In the Roundup litigation, the question is whether the EPA’s approval of a pesticide label leaves any room for state failure-to-warn claims, or whether federal oversight alone governs what warnings, if any, must appear on the product. For plaintiffs, these types of lawsuits are often the only means to argue that consumers were not fully informed of the potential risks of using certain products.
A ruling in Bayer’s favor could significantly limit future Roundup lawsuits. A ruling for plaintiffs would reaffirm the role of state courts and juries in evaluating whether product warnings were adequate.
Legal observers say the Court’s eventual decision could influence:
- whether existing Roundup lawsuits continue moving forward,
- how much leverage each side has in settlement negotiations, and
- how similar chemical and pesticide cases are litigated in the future.
Until the Court issues a ruling, Roundup cases will continue to proceed in state and federal courts, with outcomes varying by jurisdiction.
Legal Guidance for Those Exposed to Roundup
For individuals who have been exposed to Roundup and later diagnosed with cancer or other serious illnesses, understanding legal options can be overwhelming. An experienced Roundup lawyer can help those suffering injuries explore potential claims, review exposure history, and evaluate medical records and timing. With ongoing appeals and potential Supreme Court rulings that could affect how these cases move forward, having knowledgeable legal guidance can help individuals better understand their rights in a changing legal environment.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments during the upcoming term, with a decision expected by late spring or early summer. For people following the Roundup litigation, particularly those diagnosed with cancer after years of herbicide exposure, the ruling could determine whether failure-to-warn claims remain a viable path for seeking accountability.
As the case unfolds, it is likely to become one of the most closely watched product-liability decisions in years, not just for Roundup plaintiffs and Bayer, but for the broader landscape of consumer safety and corporate responsibility.
