Supreme Court weighs Roundup cancer lawsuits

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday in a case that could settle a long battle over the safety of a commonly used US weedkiller.

The suit centers on whether Roundup can be held liable for failing to place a cancer warning on its products.

The court case focuses on John Durnell, who blames decades of Roundup use for his blood cancer. He won $1.25 million in 2023. Bayer has appealed.

The outcome could shape one of the largest product liability fights in US history, with billions of dollars at stake, reshape the agriculture industry, sway pending legal settlements, and influence the midterm elections.

Glyphosate lies at the heart of the case, the main ingredient in Roundup, developed by Monsanto and now owned by Bayer. More than 100,000 lawsuits claim the company failed to warn users about cancer risks. Bayer has already paid about $11 billion in settlements.

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, argues that the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act blocks such state-level claims. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly found glyphosate safe, and Bayer says it cannot add cancer warnings without contradicting federal rulings.

However, the World Health Organization linked glyphosate to cancer in 2015, sparking a wave of lawsuits.

Several justices, including John G. Roberts Jr., questioned whether states would lose all authority if new risks emerge. Others warned that allowing such claims could create inconsistent rules nationwide.

What’s at stake
Farm groups warn that banning glyphosate could disrupt food production across millions of acres. Meanwhile, health advocates argue the public has a right to know potential risks. 

The ruling, expected by June or July, could either erase existing verdicts or open the door to thousands more claims.

A favorable decision in Durnell would limit Bayer’s liability, along with its $7.25 billion settlement offer in February.