Supreme Court blocks thousands of Roundup cancer lawsuits, limiting state claims
In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal pesticide labeling rules preempt state lawsuits alleging Roundup caused cancer, a move Bayer says will curb litigation.
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 issued a 7-2 ruling that prevents plaintiffs from suing the maker of Roundup herbicide for failing to warn that the product might cause cancer. The justices held that federal law, which requires the label approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), supersedes state tort claims that seek additional warnings.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, said the EPA has repeatedly re-approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, and therefore 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.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the decision departs from the prevailing view of courts that state law can provide stronger consumer protections when federal regulation is insufficient.
“In my view, the majority should have joined that chorus,” Jackson wrote.
Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, said the ruling will sharply reduce its exposure to billions of dollars in potential liability from glyphosate-related suits. CEO Bill Anderson called the decision “overdue justice” and a step toward ending the litigation.
The Court’s interpretation hinges on the EPA’s current stance that it has not found Roundup to pose a cancer risk, a position that has been criticized by health and environmental groups. They warn that the ruling could limit future lawsuits against other pesticides.
The case arose after a Missouri jury awarded $1.25 million to a plaintiff who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer’s attorney Paul Clement argued that Congress intended uniform pesticide labeling and that allowing state-level warnings would create “crippling liability” for farmers.
Legal analysts note that the decision effectively shields Bayer from state-based claims while the EPA’s mandatory safety review of glyphosate remains overdue.