Lead

The US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Bayer, the maker of Roundup weedkiller, in a decision that is expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging the product failed to warn users of cancer risks. The 7-2 ruling overturned a Missouri jury verdict and limited the ability of plaintiffs to sue pesticide companies in state courts over labeling, a significant victory for the company.

Coverage comparison

The ruling was reported by multiple outlets, with most emphasizing its effect on the flood of litigation against Bayer. Al Jazeera and France 24 both described the decision as siding with Bayer and blocking lawsuits, while Deutsche Welle and The Guardian framed it as "reining in" or "limiting" such legal actions. All reports noted that Bayer acquired Roundup when it bought Monsanto in 2018.

The case centered on John Durnell, a Missouri gardener who won $1.25 million after claiming his non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by years of exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. The Supreme Court's decision, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, held that federal law, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), preempts state failure-to-warn claims because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluated Roundup and concluded no cancer warning was necessary.

Key claims

  • Supreme Court ruling: The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bayer, overturning a Missouri verdict and blocking state-level lawsuits that allege Bayer failed to warn about cancer risks. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Jackson called the ruling "remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state torts plaintiffs like Durnell."
  • Acquisition of Monsanto: Bayer acquired Roundup's original producer, Monsanto, in 2018, inheriting tens of thousands of lawsuits.
  • IARC classification: The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic" in 2015. The EPA, however, does not classify glyphosate as a carcinogen and has not required a warning label.
  • Litigation scale: Over 100,000 plaintiffs have filed cases in US state and federal courts. Bayer has paid out around $11 billion to settle roughly 100,000 cases, according to one report, with tens of thousands of claims still active.
  • Proposed settlement: Bayer plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many remaining claims.
  • Bayer's response: Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said the decision "is good for American farmers who help feed the world," providing "regulatory clarity necessary for innovators." Bayer shares jumped nearly 18% following the ruling.
  • Criticism: Environmental groups and lawyers representing plaintiffs denounced the ruling, saying it "wrongly slams the courthouse door" on people sickened by pesticides. Allies of the "Make America Healthy Again" movement also expressed outrage.

Perspectives

Bayer: The company welcomed the ruling, asserting that scientific studies and regulatory research show glyphosate is safe and that federal law requires the use of EPA-approved labels. Bayer maintains it will proceed with a proposed settlement for remaining claims.

US Supreme Court majority: The majority opinion, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, held that federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims because the EPA evaluated Roundup and decided a cancer warning was unnecessary.

US Supreme Court dissent: Justices Jackson and Gorsuch argued that the ruling unjustifiably closes courthouse doors to plaintiffs and that Monsanto could have added a warning without violating federal law.

Environmental groups and plaintiffs' lawyers: Critics denounced the decision, saying it prevents Americans harmed by pesticides from seeking justice in state courts.