Supreme Court blocks thousands of Roundup cancer lawsuits in 7-2 ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Thursday that Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup weedkiller, cannot be sued in state courts over claims that the product failed to warn consumers about cancer risks. The case centered on John Durnell, a Missouri man who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after two decades of using Roundup. A jury had awarded him 1.25 million dollars, but the Supreme Court reversed that verdict. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, finding that federal pesticide law preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims because the EPA has approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning since 1974. The ruling is expected to block tens of thousands of pending lawsuits. Bayer has also proposed a 7.25 billion dollar settlement to resolve current and future claims. However, significant scientific disagreement persists: while the EPA concludes glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer, the World Health Organization's research agency classified it as probably carcinogenic to humans in 2015.
Key facts
- Supreme Court voted 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell, decided June 25, 2026
- John Durnell of Missouri developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after 20 years of Roundup exposure
- Jury awarded Durnell 1.25 million dollars in 2023; Supreme Court reversed the verdict
- Tens of thousands of pending failure-to-warn lawsuits expected to be dismissed
- More than 100,000 people across the U.S. have sued Monsanto over Roundup
- Bayer proposed 7.25 billion dollar class settlement in February 2026
- World Health Organization classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic in 2015
- EPA has determined glyphosate not likely to cause cancer since 1974
- Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for 63 billion dollars
- Justice Kavanaugh wrote majority; Justices Jackson and Gorsuch dissented
How different outlets framed it
Left-leaning coverage: Left-leaning outlets and environmental groups characterize the ruling as a corporate victory that shields manufacturers from accountability and eliminates a crucial backstop for injured people. They highlight that litigation revealed Monsanto knew more about cancer risks than disclosed, and stress that the decision leaves people harmed by pesticides without recourse when federal oversight falls short.
Right-leaning coverage: Right-leaning outlets frame the ruling as good for agricultural productivity, regulatory certainty, and business clarity. They emphasize that the EPA—the expert regulatory body—has repeatedly determined glyphosate safe, and that uniform federal standards prevent a patchwork of state lawsuits from undermining farming and food security.
Limits of this briefing
Coverage reflects the genuine scientific disagreement between the EPA and WHO's research agency on glyphosate safety. Some sources note that a retracted scientific paper—previously used to support glyphosate safety claims—had ethical concerns about Monsanto's role in its authorship, though this detail appears primarily in progressive outlets.
Sources
- PBS NewsHour: Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller Centre
- CNBC: Supreme Court limits Roundup cancer suits against Bayer's Monsanto Centre
- Earthjustice: Supreme Court Sides with Monsanto in Roundup Case, Shielding Pesticide Companies from Failure-to-Warn Lawsuits Left
- NPR: Supreme Court backs Monsanto in its fight against liability from popular weed killer Centre
- Washington Times: Bayer wins in Roundup cancer case in the Supreme Court Right