Supreme Court Sides with Corporate Power, Blocks Thousands of Roundup Cancer Lawsuits, Undermining State Protections
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has prioritized corporate interests over public health, ruling that federal pesticide labeling rules override state lawsuits alleging Roundup caused cancer. Bayer, the agrochemical giant, hails the move, which will drastically limit accountability and consumer protections.
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to public health and environmental justice by ruling 7-2 in favor of Bayer/Monsanto, blocking thousands of lawsuits from people harmed by Roundup herbicide. The Court's conservative majority declared that federal law, dictated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), trumps state efforts to hold corporations accountable through tort claims demanding stronger cancer warnings.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, sided with industry interests, noting that the EPA has repeatedly rubber-stamped Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, thus denying a Missouri plaintiff the right to pursue a 'failure-to-warn' claim.
“In sum, federal law requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the label that EPA approved at the initial registration … that is, the label without a cancer warning,” Kavanaugh wrote, effectively silencing state-level demands for transparency.
Dissenting Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch condemned the decision, highlighting that it abandons the long-standing principle that states can provide stronger consumer protections when federal agencies fail to act.
“In my view, the majority should have joined that chorus,” Jackson wrote, standing up for the rights of ordinary people against corporate impunity.
Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, celebrated the ruling, boasting that it will sharply reduce its exposure to billions in liability for glyphosate-related cancers. CEO Bill Anderson called the decision “overdue justice,” a chilling reminder of how corporate influence shapes the law.
The Court’s decision rests on the EPA’s controversial stance that Roundup poses no cancer risk—a position fiercely criticized by health and environmental groups who warn that the ruling will embolden chemical companies and limit future lawsuits against dangerous pesticides.
The case originated after a Missouri jury awarded $1.25 million to a victim who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure. Bayer’s attorney Paul Clement argued that Congress intended uniform labeling, dismissing state-level warnings as a threat to industry profits and “crippling liability” for farmers.
Legal experts note that the decision effectively shields Bayer from state-based claims while the EPA’s long-overdue safety review of glyphosate remains stalled, leaving countless Americans vulnerable to corporate negligence.