US Supreme Court scales back Roundup cancer lawsuits in victory for company

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Bayer, the maker of Roundup weedkiller, in a decision that is expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging the product causes cancer. In a 7-2 ruling, the court found that state courts cannot hear failure-to-warn claims because federal regulations, specifically from the EPA, have determined a cancer link is unlikely and do not require a warning label. This decision overturned a jury verdict awarding $1.25 million to a man who claimed Roundup exposure led to his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer's shares rose significantly after the ruling, which the company stated should help contain the litigation. However, some activists criticized the decision as a "disaster for public health."

The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the former Monsanto company in *Monsanto v. Durnell*, a case concerning lawsuits alleging Roundup's weedkiller causes cancer. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kavanaugh, held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not required such warnings. This decision is expected to block thousands of lawsuits against Bayer (which owns Monsanto) and Syngenta, as well as future claims. Justices Jackson and Gorsuch dissented, arguing FIFRA does not eliminate states' authority to regulate labels or block claims where state law violations also violate FIFRA. Bayer praised the ruling for providing regulatory clarity, while environmental groups criticized it for siding with corporations over public health.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bayer, the maker of Roundup weedkiller, blocking thousands of lawsuits alleging the product causes cancer. The court found that the company cannot be sued in state courts for failure to warn because federal regulations have deemed a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label. This decision stems from numerous lawsuits, including some with multibillion-dollar verdicts, against Bayer. While a victory for the Trump administration, the ruling could be politically complex. Bayer stated the decision should help contain litigation, though they plan to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement. Critics argue the ruling unfairly prevents sick individuals from seeking compensation. The debate over glyphosate's carcinogenicity continues, with the WHO classifying it as "probably carcinogenic" and the EPA finding it unlikely to cause cancer when used as directed.