Supreme Court Blocks Thousands of Roundup Cancer Lawsuits in 7-2 Decision
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Roundup maker Bayer cannot be sued under state law for failing to warn consumers the weedkiller might cause cancer — because the EPA hasn't required that warning on the label.
The 7-2 decision effectively shuts down thousands of pending lawsuits from people who developed cancer after using Roundup and were seeking damages under state product liability laws. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority that federal pesticide law requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the EPA-approved label — and that label contains no cancer warning. State law can't require what federal law doesn't.
The case centered on John Durnell, who spent more than two decades as the "spray guy" for his St. Louis neighborhood association, applying Roundup regularly. He developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and in 2023 a jury awarded him $1.25 million, ruling Monsanto failed to warn him of the risk. That verdict is now voided.
"Federal law requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the label that EPA approved," Kavanaugh wrote. "Durnell's state tort claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to its labels." The two can't coexist — and federal law wins.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Jackson argued the majority "departs from the near unanimous view" of courts that have considered the question and would have allowed state claims to proceed.
Bayer called the ruling "overdue justice." CEO Bill Anderson said it was "time to put it behind us."
What This Means for the Science — and Why It's Contested
The ruling doesn't settle whether Roundup actually causes cancer. It settles who gets to decide whether a warning is required — and the answer is the EPA, not state juries.
That distinction is significant because the EPA's position on glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, has been contested for years. In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" — the finding that sparked the wave of lawsuits. Bayer disputes this classification. The EPA has repeatedly concluded glyphosate is "not likely" carcinogenic to humans — a meaningfully different statement than declaring it safe.
"The EPA never said Roundup was safe," said one plaintiffs' attorney who has handled Roundup cases. "They said it was 'not likely' carcinogenic. That is not the same thing, and real people are allegedly paying the price for that distinction with their health and their lives."
Making the regulatory picture murkier — the EPA's most recent glyphosate safety review is years overdue. A federal court ruled in 2022 that the EPA hadn't adequately evaluated the cancer question when it reached its interim conclusion during the first Trump administration. The updated review still hasn't been completed, meaning thousands of cancer lawsuits were being decided against a backdrop of an unfinished and legally challenged federal safety assessment.
The Stakes Beyond This Case
Bayer has faced enormous financial exposure from Roundup litigation. The company bought Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion — inheriting liability for a product that quickly became the most litigated weedkiller in history. It has already paid out billions in settlements and was staring down thousands more cases when Wednesday's ruling came down.
The company has already pulled glyphosate from Roundup products sold for residential use. It has warned publicly that if lawsuits continued it might have to stop selling glyphosate to US farmers entirely — a prospect that major agricultural groups called a "devastating risk to America's food supply." Roundup has been the top-selling herbicide in the United States since it was introduced in the 1970s and is deeply embedded in how American agriculture operates.
The Trump administration sided with Bayer in the case — a position that created an unusual rift with the Make America Healthy Again movement, which has pushed to reduce pesticide use. "The Supreme Court's ruling in favor of foreign chemical companies, which essentially allows them immunity from lawsuits, is a travesty," said the founder of Moms Across America.
Public health and environmental advocates warned the ruling extends well beyond Roundup. The legal principle established — that EPA label approval shields manufacturers from state failure-to-warn claims — could apply to any federally registered pesticide. The question of whether states can provide stronger consumer protections than federal regulations allow has now been answered, at least in this context: they can't.
For the thousands of people who used Roundup for years and developed cancer, Wednesday's decision closes the courthouse door.
Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.