SCOTUS Weighs Limits on Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

The Supreme Court waded into a high-stakes Roundup fight Monday that could decide whether tens of thousands of cancer lawsuits against Monsanto can proceed. At issue isn't directly whether the weed killer causes cancer, but whether federal pesticide law blocks state juries from punishing Monsanto for not warning about alleged risks. The justices seemed slightly more open to limiting lawsuits but grilled both sides enough that the outcome is uncertain, reports the Washington Post. Billions of dollars in liability are at stake, with a ruling expected by the end of June.

• The case stems from a Missouri verdict for John Durnell, who used Roundup in St. Louis-area parks for about 20 years before being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A jury awarded him $1.25 million after concluding Monsanto failed to warn of cancer risks.
• Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, argues that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act—FIFRA—gives the Environmental Protection Agency the last word on pesticide labels, and because the EPA has repeatedly said glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, doesn't cause cancer, states can't demand stronger warnings. The Trump administration, reversing the Biden administration's position, joined the case on Bayer's side.
• The company is facing more than 100,000 Roundup claims and has set aside around $16 billion to deal with them. It has taken Roundup off the consumer market but still sells it to farmers. In its petition, however, the company told the court that the "continuing overhang of these lawsuits threatens Monsanto's ability to continue to supply glyphosate to farmers who need it to remain world leaders in food production."

• Several justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, pressed how companies could navigate a patchwork of state requirements when FIFRA was designed to create a single national label. Others, including Ketanji Brown Jackson, questioned whether cutting off lawsuits would undercut a key way health risks are brought to light, with Jackson noting that the threat of liability can push manufacturers to fully inform the EPA.
• Chief Justice John Roberts asked a Trump administration lawyer whether states would be blocked from raising concerns about products while the EPA's review process is ongoing, the New York Times reports. "Throughout that long process, in response to information that suggests there is a risk that's not on the label, the states cannot do anything?" he asked.

• Outside the courtroom, the split was just as sharp, the Post reports. The American Farm Bureau Federation warned that losing glyphosate would "pose an immediate, devastating risk to America's food supply," while environmental and health groups urged the court not to give Monsanto what they call effective immunity over "an inherently dangerous product."
• The AP reports that dozens of supporters of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's MAHA movement gathered outside the court building for a "People vs. Poison rally." Kennedy has said he believes glyphosate causes cancer, though he has also expressed support for President Trump's executive order earlier this year to boost US glyphosate production.