Supreme Court Hears Case on Pesticides, Rallying the MAHA Moms
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement is facing a significant test of its power as the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear about the liability of pesticide manufacturers. Here is a look at the case and how the MAHA forces are getting involved.
Supreme Court Hears Case on Pesticides
U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been leading the charge against pesticides as part of his MAHA movement. The influence of this movement across the country will be put to the test with a new Supreme Court case. The highest court in the land began hearing arguments on Monday regarding a battle over whether a popular weedkiller is safe.
The lawsuit has been brought against Bayer, the makers of Roundup weedkiller. The ruling will determine whether people can sue the company over alleged illnesses blamed on the product. The outcome is expected to be announced by the court in June.
The desire to limit pesticides has been a cornerstone of the MAHA movement. This energy was on display on Monday when hundreds of protestors gathered outside the court in Washington, D.C. Speakers at the rally encouraged demonstrators to speak out for more pesticide protections.
The roots of the case date back to 2014. DeWayne “Lee” Johnson, a school groundskeeper in San Francisco, was 42 years old when he was diagnosed with terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Johnson had used the herbicide Roundup, also known as glyphosate, around the school grounds. He developed rashes and lesions across his body after he was accidentally drenched with the liquid.
Johnson won a landmark $289 million settlement in 2018. Monsanto, the maker of Roundup at the time, was found liable for his diagnosis. What makes this case most interesting today is that Kennedy was the environmental lawyer working in California who helped Johnson to win the case.
The case settlement was eventually reduced to $20.4 million after a series of court appeals. However, the decision marked one of many that were brought against Monsanto, a company now owned by Bayer.
While Bayer has agreed to pay out billions of dollars for its alleged liability in several lawsuits, the company has continued to assert that the Roundup product is safe. Bayer has repeatedly leaned on the review of the product by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as proof that it is not harmful.
The lawsuit being mulled over by the Supreme Court will determine whether people can bring subsequent cases against Bayer. The group of plaintiffs is led by a man who alleges that he got cancer after years of using the product in Missouri.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer authored a brief filed with the court, noting that the “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.”
The nine-justice court appeared to be divided on Monday. Both the plaintiffs and the defense were asked tough questions regarding their stances. The core of the argument centers on whether a 1972 federal law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, takes precedence over the ability of the states to apply their own product labeling.
Bayer's attorneys are arguing that the law is designed to prevent individual states from using their own labeling system. However, Chief Justice John Roberts openly questioned what role the states should take on as the EPA continues to review new information about the safety of the product. After Monday's arguments, a spokesperson for Bayer said that ruling in their favor would “provide essential regulatory clarity for companies.”
How MAHA Has Inserted Itself Into the Pesticide Debate
Kennedy has been increasingly vocal about his goal to ban glyphosate and limit the use of pesticides overall. However, this goal is at odds with the Trump administration's recent directive to order more production of the chemical. The Trump administration is supporting Bayer, detailing that it should fall under the jurisdiction of the EPA to determine the risks of these types of chemicals.
Not surprisingly, the competing positions on the safety of glyphosate have caused unrest between Trump supporters and MAHA voters. The MAHA group points out that their support helped to put Trump back in the Oval Office, yet they are now being ignored.
Speakers at Monday's rally also landed on both sides of the political spectrum, speaking to the controversy within both parties. For instance, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Sen. Cory Booker both spoke out in support of the plaintiffs.
Sarah Starman, a farmer and campaigner with ecological group Friends of the Earth, might have summed up the paradox best. In her address on Monday, Starman detailed that while "The Trump administration has gutted protections for health and for the environment.....the public momentum against pesticides and behind cleaning up toxic chemicals in our environment and behind healthy food and farming is so strong.”
Meanwhile, the so-called "MAHA moms" are holding strong to their belief that their opinion matters, even if it does not align with the Trump administration. Most notably, Erika Kirk and other MAHA allies met in the Oval Office with the president about what they expect from the White House.
Some of the most influential of these MAHA moms are warning that there could be consequences for the midterm elections if the Trump administration does not do more to support the MAHA mom movement.
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.