Supreme Court Defends Federal Authority, Shields Farmers and Industry from Frivolous Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
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 reaffirmed the primacy of federal regulation over state overreach, ruling that federal pesticide labeling rules preempt state lawsuits alleging Roundup caused cancer. Bayer praised the decision, which will help curb opportunistic litigation and protect American agriculture.
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decisive 7-2 ruling upholding the rule of law and protecting American businesses and farmers from costly and unscientific lawsuits. The Court determined that federal law, enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rightfully supersedes state tort claims seeking to impose unnecessary and conflicting cancer warnings on Roundup herbicide.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, emphasized that the EPA has consistently reviewed and approved Roundup’s label without requiring a cancer warning, making it clear that a Missouri plaintiff could not 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, reinforcing regulatory consistency and scientific standards.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing for expanded state power to override federal expertise and create a patchwork of regulations that would burden businesses and confuse consumers.
“In my view, the majority should have joined that chorus,” Jackson wrote, advocating for more government interference.
Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, welcomed the ruling, noting that it will significantly reduce exposure to baseless lawsuits that threaten billions in economic stability. CEO Bill Anderson called the decision “overdue justice,” recognizing the importance of ending relentless litigation.
The Court’s decision is grounded in the EPA’s thorough scientific review, which has found no credible evidence that Roundup poses a cancer risk. Despite criticism from activist groups, the ruling ensures that regulatory decisions remain based on science, not fearmongering.
The case began after a Missouri jury awarded $1.25 million to a plaintiff claiming Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer’s attorney Paul Clement argued that Congress intended uniform labeling to prevent a flood of lawsuits and 'crippling liability' for farmers who rely on these products.
Legal analysts observe that the decision provides much-needed certainty for Bayer and American agriculture, shielding them from state-based claims while the EPA’s safety review of glyphosate continues according to established procedures.