Tens of Thousands of Roundup Lawsuits Hinge on This Supreme Court Decision

Last updated 7 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

A Missouri man named John Durnell developed cancer after years of spraying Roundup in his garden. On January 16, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal of his $1.25 million verdict—a decision that could affect the approximately 61,000 lawsuits actively pending as of January 2026. The justices will determine if federal regulatory approval can protect companies from being sued when people get sick, even when companies influence the agencies, the science moves slowly, or regulators get things wrong.

The legal question sounds technical: whether federal law stops people from suing in state courts for missing warnings when the EPA hasn’t required a warning. Bayer (which bought Monsanto in 2018) is arguing: Once the EPA approves our label, you can’t sue us in state court for failing to warn you about health risks. Even if we knew about those risks. Even if the science changes. Even if we influenced the studies the EPA relied on.

What Happened to John Durnell

Durnell spent years as a home gardener in St. Louis, spraying Roundup without protective equipment because the label suggested it was safe for consumer use. He developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a blood cancer that plaintiffs’ attorneys have linked to chronic pesticide exposure in thousands of similar cases.

In 2023, a Missouri jury heard his case and awarded him $1.25 million. The company appealed, arguing that federal law should have barred the case entirely. The Missouri Court of Appeals disagreed. So Bayer took it to the Supreme Court.

Bayer’s Financial Stakes and Legal Strategy

Bayer has already paid out more than $11 billion to settle cases. Approximately 170,000 total claims have been filed, with roughly 61,000 lawsuits actively pending as of January 2026, most in state courts and 4,511 pending in the federal MDL in California. Settlement negotiations have repeatedly collapsed because Bayer wants to close the door on future claims while plaintiffs’ lawyers refuse to accept deals that don’t cover everyone who’s been exposed.

The Trump administration’s Solicitor General filed a brief in December 2025 supporting Bayer’s position—a reversal from the Biden administration’s stance that federal law still allows lawsuits when companies don’t warn about dangers.

How Federal Law Blocks State Lawsuits

In 2005, the Supreme Court decided Bates v. Dow Agrosciences. The holding is narrower than it might appear: failure-to-warn claims may proceed only if based on common-law duties parallel to federal standards, not broader independent state requirements. Multiple federal appeals courts have relied on that distinction to let cases proceed in state tribunals.

Monsanto argues that difference doesn’t matter. If a jury finds you liable for failing to include a warning, you’re effectively being required to add that warning. And if EPA has explicitly determined that warning would be false and misleading—which the agency has said about cancer warnings for glyphosate—then adding it would constitute “misbranding” under federal law. You’d break federal rules to follow a state court order.

The Misbranding Claim and EPA Enforcement

Companies add warnings beyond EPA requirements all the time when they think it’s prudent or when they’re facing liability. Whether EPA would enforce misbranding violations against a company adding extra safety warnings remains theoretical because it almost never happens. The Trump administration’s Solicitor General argues that allowing companies to bypass EPA approval for label changes would undermine the system. But that argument assumes the current system works as intended—that EPA approval represents a careful, independent scientific judgment rather than a process companies can influence.

The Retracted Study That Changes Everything

Twenty-five years ago, a major scientific journal published a study concluding glyphosate is safe. EPA relied on that study. Regulators around the world cited it. Monsanto pointed to it as proof that the weedkiller doesn’t cause cancer.

In November 2025, the journal retracted it.

Bayer is asking the high tribunal to rule that EPA approval shields them from liability. But if the company ghost-wrote studies that EPA relied on to grant that approval, the entire premise collapses. You can’t claim federal regulators made an independent scientific determination when you wrote the science yourself.

The 2009 decision in Wyeth v. Levine—a pharmaceutical case—included language suggesting preemption might not apply when companies engage in fraud to prevent regulators from learning about risks. How that principle extends to pesticides under FIFRA is exactly the kind of question the justices might explore during oral arguments, expected sometime this spring.

Impact on Other Industries

If Bayer wins, the impact would spread to other industries. Pharmaceutical companies facing state claims over inadequate drug warnings despite FDA approval would have a new playbook. Medical device manufacturers could invoke the same doctrine. Chemical companies, consumer goods manufacturers—anyone operating under a federal regime with language that explicitly says federal law overrides state law would suddenly have a much stronger shield against state liability.

Syngenta, which faces thousands of claims from people saying its paraquat pesticide caused Parkinson’s disease, has a direct stake in how this case comes out. So do the agricultural organizations that have filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Monsanto, arguing that uniform federal regulation serves farmers by preventing inconsistent state requirements.

Georgia and North Dakota passed laws declaring that state tribunals won’t impose failure-to-warn liability when EPA has approved a product’s labeling. Those statutes bet on Bayer winning at the high tribunal. If the company loses instead, those state laws become interesting federalism questions in their own right.

Environmental Groups’ Regulatory Capture Concerns

Environmental groups argue that state juries serve as a check on agencies that move too slowly or suffer from regulatory capture when companies gain too much control over the agencies supposed to regulate them. EPA’s pesticide rules often lag behind science. When that happens, the ability to sue for damages provides an alternative mechanism for accountability—one that Bayer is now asking the justices to eliminate.

The Current Supreme Court’s Likely Position

The Supreme Court’s makeup has changed significantly since it decided Bates in 2005. The current six-justice conservative majority has shown receptiveness to federalism arguments and skepticism toward inconsistent state regulations that fragment national markets.

But several current justices have rejected sweeping legal rules that let federal law block state claims. Brent Wisner, one of the lead attorneys for plaintiffs, told reporters he expects Bayer to lose based on how the justices have ruled in similar cases before. The outcome likely turns on how the swing justices balance competing interests: uniformity versus traditional state remedies for defective products. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s vote could be decisive. So could the question of what happens when companies manipulate the science that federal approval is based on.

Practical Reality for Plaintiffs

Approximately 61,000 people with actively pending cases as of January 2026 are waiting to find out if their claims survive. Some have already developed cancer. Others were exposed years ago and are watching for symptoms. Many filed in state tribunals specifically because federal ones have been less receptive to their claims—a strategic choice that a ruling for Bayer would retroactively invalidate.

Settlement negotiations have largely stalled while everyone waits for the decision. If Bayer wins, the company’s settlement offers will drop precipitously because plaintiffs will have lost their bargaining power. If Bayer loses, settlement values will increase and the pace of negotiations will accelerate as the company tries to resolve cases before more juries hear evidence about ghost-written studies and concealed health risks.

Billions of dollars are at stake, but so is whether people who get sick from products they were told were safe can hold manufacturers accountable, or if approval—even when obtained through questionable means—becomes an absolute defense.

Why This Case Affects Every American

The high tribunal is deciding: Can companies that comply with federal regulations—or appear to comply, or influence the process to ensure compliance—be held liable under state law when their products hurt people?

That question affects every American who uses prescription drugs, medical devices, pesticides, or consumer products regulated by federal agencies. It determines if the ability to sue for damages remains available as a backstop when agencies fail, move too slowly, or get manipulated by the industries they’re supposed to oversee.

Bayer wants the justices to say that EPA approval ends the inquiry. Environmental groups and plaintiffs’ attorneys want them to preserve state juries’ power to evaluate evidence, assess credibility, and award damages when companies knew or should have known their products were dangerous.

The justices will hear arguments in the spring. By summer, we’ll know which vision of accountability prevails—and if John Durnell’s $1.25 million verdict stands or falls, taking tens of thousands of other claims with it.

A ruling for Bayer would signal that EPA approval bars state claims even when companies manipulated the underlying science. A ruling against the company would preserve the ability to present evidence to juries about what Monsanto knew, when they knew it, and what they did to keep that information from regulators and consumers.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.