June 25, 2026:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with the maker of Roundup weedkiller Thursday (June 25, 2026) in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.
The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against Bayer, a German agrochemical manufacturer that acquired Roundup’s original producer, Monsanto, in 2018.
The decision is a victory for President Donald Trump’s administration, which argued in support of Bayer. But it provoked outrage from allies in the “ Make America Healthy Again” movement who want to rein in pesticide use.
The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, held that Roundup cannot be sued in state courts for failure to warn because federal regulators have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label. Federal law also bars states from imposing additional or different labeling requirements, the opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh states.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Neil Gorsuch, dissented, saying that Monsanto could have added a warning without violating federal law.
Though focused on Roundup, the ruling could affect similar health claims against other pesticide products.
“This decision is good for American farmers who help feed the world,“ Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said. ”It provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply.”
Though Bayer said the ruling should result in the dismissal of failure-to-warn lawsuits, the company said it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.
The ruling was denounced by environmental groups and lawyers representing people who believe they were harmed by Roundup.
“This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides,” said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is a claimant’s representative in the settlement. But he said a settlement still would allow some people to receive compensation.
The decision “is a tragic setback for public and environmental health,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a health and environmental group.
A sickened gardener had won $1 million
The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell. He developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood association’s “spray guy,” using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community.
A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. But Durnell never received the money as his case was appealed. Durnell, 75, said Thursday that his cancer is in remission, and he will be fine without the money.
But “there are thousands of cases that are like mine that will not see court now,” Durnell said. “So that is the biggest disappointment for me.”
There is still fierce debate about whether Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.
The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argued that it was required to follow those federal standards. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that separate warning requirements cannot be compelled by state laws and courts. The ruling still leaves room for other lawsuits alleging problems with the product’s design, and Durnell said he is considering bringing a new case on different grounds.
Bayer has pledged billions for settlements
Bayer disputes the cancer claims but previously set aside $16 billion to settle cases, and earlier this year proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement. A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed settlement will be heard in a Missouri state court, where many of the lawsuits have been filed.
At the same time, Bayer has tried to persuade states to pass laws shielding it from liability in failure-to-warn lawsuits. North Dakota was the first to do so, followed by Georgia and Kentucky.
About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, mostly from home users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market.
The company had said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if it keeps getting sued. Agricultural industry groups have said Roundup is important for a strong food supply.
“Today’s decision protects our access to the tools that let us care for our soil, protect our crops, and keep food affordable for your family and mine,” said Blake Hurst, a corn and soybean farmer who is a former president of the Missouri Farm Bureau.
The court ruling runs counter to the MAHA movement
Pesticides have created a rift between the administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, who were frustrated by an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate’s production.
Kennedy has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.
After the high court’s decision on Thursday, prominent MAHA activist Kelly Ryerson, known to her supporters as “Glyphosate Girl,” called the Trump administration’s participation in the case “unforgivable.”
Some health advocates contend the EPA’s approval of glyphosate-based weedkillers was based on limited information and that lawsuits in state courts have turned up additional evidence against it.
“The fact that EPA approved a pesticide label does not mean a product is safe, and it should not become a shield for companies that fail to warn about cancer risks, neurological harm, and other serious dangers,” said Patti Goldman, senior attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental legal organization.
March 9, 2026:
A Missouri state court has granted preliminary approval to a proposed $7.3 billion settlement aimed at resolving thousands of lawsuits alleging that Bayer’s Roundup herbicide caused cancer.
DTN reports the order from the Missouri Circuit Court in St. Louis allows the company to begin notifying potential claimants nationwide and sets a July 9, 2026, fairness hearing to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval. As part of the preliminary ruling, Bayer must deposit $500 million into the settlement fund within 10 business days.
The proposed settlement, announced in February, is intended to compensate current and future plaintiffs who claim Roundup exposure caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The agreement also establishes a long-term program for handling future claims. Attorneys representing plaintiffs said the ruling is an important step toward compensation for victims after years of litigation. Bayer officials said the settlement is part of a broader strategy to resolve ongoing legal challenges tied to the herbicide.
The settlement process will now move through a notice period before the court decides whether to grant final approval later this year.
Feb. 20, 2026:
UNDATED-AP- Bayer has agreed to a proposed $7.25 billion deal to settle thousands of U.S. lawsuits that blame Roundup for causing cancer. Bayer and lawyers for cancer patients announced Tuesday (Feb. 17, 2026) that they were filing the proposed settlement in St. Louis. It comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear Bayer’s argument about federal rules and warning labels for the popular weedkiller. That separate case will continue. Bayer says Roundup’s key ingredient of glyphosate does not cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. But the company says legal costs have threatened Roundup sales in U.S. farming markets. Bayer bought Monsanto, the original Roundup maker, in 2018.
Jan. 20, 2026:
The U.S. Supreme Court will review the Durnell Roundup case. Monsanto had petitioned the court to hear Durnell in April 2025.
The company asked the Court to address the split in authority among federal circuit courts on the application of federal preemption, a cross-cutting issue in the Roundup litigation. The company expects a decision on the merits during the Court’s 2026 session, which ends in June.
“The Supreme Court decision to take the case is good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. “It’s also an important step in our multipronged strategy to significantly contain this legislation.”
Anderson also said it’s time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements, as every leading regulator in the world has concluded that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely.
Jan. 16, 2026:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Friday (Jan. 16, 2026) to hear an appeal from global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer to block thousands of state lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people that its popular weedkiller could cause cancer.
The justices will consider whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the Roundup weedkiller without a cancer warning should rule out the state court claims.
The Trump administration has weighed in on Bayer’s behalf, reversing the Biden administration’s position and putting it at odds with some supporters of the Make America Healthy Again agenda who oppose giving the company the legal immunity it seeks.
Some studies associate Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, with cancer, although the EPA has said it is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed.
Bayer disputes the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases. At the same time, it has tried to persuade states to pass laws barring the lawsuits. Georgia and North Dakota have done so.
The high court will take up a case from Missouri, in which a jury awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis.
The Supreme Court in 2022 declined to hear a similar claim from Bayer in a California case that awarded more than $86 million to a married couple.
But Germany-based Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, contends the Supreme Court should intervene now because lower courts have issued conflicting rulings. In 2024, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bayer’s favor.
Bayer faces about 181,000 Roundup claims, mostly from residential users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market. But glyphosate remains in agricultural products. It’s designed to be used with genetically modified seeds, including corn, soybeans and cotton, that resist the weedkiller’s deadly effect. It allows farmers to produce more while conserving the soil by tilling it less.
Bayer has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if the lawsuits persist.
It’s unclear if the case will be argued in the spring or at the start of the next court term, in October.
Comments