Court Battle Over Roundup Could Change Thousands of Lawsuits

A man from St. Louis once sprayed a herbicide called Roundup on sidewalks to tidy up his neighborhood. Years later he was diagnosed with blood cancer and a Missouri jury said the weed‑killer caused his illness. They awarded him $1. 25 million, a decision that now faces the U. S. Supreme Court. The case is more than one person’s story. It could decide whether state courts can sue companies like Monsanto (now Bayer) for not warning about cancer risks. The court heard arguments from both sides on Monday. Monsanto’s lawyer said that federal law, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), controls pesticide labeling. States cannot add extra warnings unless the federal government says so. He argued that allowing state lawsuits would create “crippling liability” for big chemical firms. A former Trump‑era lawyer joined Monsanto’s side, pushing the same point: only the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can decide on labels. The court’s justices listened, but some were uneasy that this could strip states of their power to protect residents from harmful chemicals. One justice asked if a state can ban a product even if it can’t require warning labels. The lawyer replied that banning is still possible, but labeling isn’t.Most justices seemed to agree with Monsanto’s view that federal law trumps state claims when the EPA has deemed a chemical safe. Yet, experts and plaintiffs’ lawyers warned that the EPA’s safety assessments are flawed. They point to studies linking glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, with cancer and other health problems. The World Health Organization has called it “probably carcinogenic to humans. ” If the Supreme Court sides with Monsanto, many people who believe they were harmed by Roundup could lose a path to compensation. Critics say this would let chemical companies escape accountability while the EPA remains weak at protecting public health. The case also matters to a broader debate. Some countries have already moved to restrict or ban glyphosate because of health concerns, and a recent letter from 70 scientists urged immediate action worldwide. Bayer has spent billions on settlements and is protected by a federal order that treats glyphosate production as a national‑security interest. In short, the court’s decision could either keep state courts open to challenge big chemical companies or close that door, affecting health and safety for the rest of the country.