Bayer Faces Supreme Court on Big Roundup Lawsuit Fight

The U. S. Supreme Court will hear Bayer AG’s attempt to stop thousands of lawsuits that say the company did not warn people about Roundup’s cancer risk. Bayer wants federal pesticide rules to block state‑law claims like the one that earned a Missouri jury $1. 25 million for John Durnell, who says glyphosate caused his lymphoma after long exposure. The company argues that the EPA has repeatedly said glyphosate does not cause cancer and that its labels, approved by the agency, lack a warning. If the Court sides with Bayer, many more cases could end. Bayer bought Roundup in 2018 when it acquired Monsanto for $63 billion. Since the wave of lawsuits, Bayer removed glyphosate from its consumer product and warned farmers that legal battles could hurt supply. In February, the firm offered a $7. 25 billion settlement to resolve most current and future claims, but it would not cover appeals or other cases that could total about $1 billion.The core issue is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which sets federal standards for pesticide labeling and bars states from adding extra requirements. Bayer says Durnell’s claim is preempted by FIFRA because the EPA has approved labels that do not warn of cancer. Durnell’s lawyers counter that Missouri law still requires adequate warnings and is not preempted by FIFRA. Support for Bayer comes from many farming groups and the Trump administration, while environmental, farm‑worker and public health advocates back Durnell. A recent poll showed 63 % of people oppose protecting companies from lawsuits over cancer‑linked products, even if they warn consumers. The Supreme Court is expected to decide by the end of June. If Bayer wins, it could change how pesticide lawsuits are handled across the country.