Make America Healthy Again? US Supreme Court Shields Bayer From Roundup Cancer Warning Lawsuits
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Thursday that Bayer cannot be sued under state law for failing to warn consumers that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, overturning a $1.25 million Missouri jury verdict and reshaping the legal landscape for nearly 200,000 pending claims against the company.
The ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell triggered swift backlash from former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who accused both the court and Trump of abandoning cancer patients, deepening tensions within the president’s coalition over pesticide policy.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, found that the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly determined glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer and has never required Bayer to place a cancer warning on Roundup labels. Because federal regulators approved the label without that warning, the court held, state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits are preempted by federal law.
The case stemmed from a lawsuit by Durnell, a Missouri resident who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after more than 20 years of applying Roundup as his neighborhood association’s designated sprayer. A Missouri jury had awarded him $1.25 million, a verdict a state appeals court upheld before the Supreme Court reversed it Thursday.
Bayer, which acquired Roundup through its 2018 purchase of Monsanto, said the ruling was “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity,” adding that it should significantly contain the litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The company’s shares climbed sharply following the announcement.
Despite the win, Bayer said it intends to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement to resolve remaining claims, which a federal judge recently ruled will be heard in Missouri state court. The company had previously set aside $16 billion to address Roundup litigation.
Attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed as a representative for claimants in the settlement, criticized the ruling, saying it “wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides.” He said the proposed settlement would still allow compensation regardless of the court’s decision.
Scientific assessments of glyphosate remain divided. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015, while the EPA has concluded it is not likely to cause cancer when used as directed.
The ruling lands awkwardly for the Trump administration, which had argued in favor of Bayer’s preemption defense. Trump signed an executive order in February invoking the Defense Production Act to secure domestic glyphosate supplies, a move that frustrated allies in the MAHA movement who have pushed to restrict pesticide use.
Greene, who resigned from Congress effective Jan. 5, 2026, wrote on X that “no one is standing up for cancer patients,” adding that the Supreme Court was protecting Monsanto while Trump was protecting glyphosate. Her comments add to mounting criticism from MAHA-aligned figures who argue the administration’s regulatory posture on glyphosate contradicts its public health messaging.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not foreclose all litigation against Bayer; claims alleging design defects in Roundup, rather than failure to warn, may still proceed in some courts.
