SCOTUS Hands Monsanto a Win in Roundup Case

The nation's top court just handed Monsanto a major win in the long war over Roundup. In a 7-2 ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court said federal law blocks most state lawsuits accusing the company of failing to warn that its popular weed killer can cause cancer—dramatically shrinking a legal threat involving tens of thousands of claims and billions in potential payouts, the Washington Post reports. The justices agreed with Monsanto, now owned by Bayer: Because the Environmental Protection Agency signed off on Roundup's label under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, states can't require additional cancer warnings through jury verdicts.

The case stemmed from John Durnell, a Missouri man who said two decades of spraying Roundup in local parks led to his non-Hodgkin lymphoma; a jury awarded him $1.25 million. His side argued Monsanto misled consumers in violation of federal law by omitting cancer warnings, citing a 2015 finding from a World Health Organization-linked agency that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is "probably carcinogenic to humans." The EPA, however, has repeatedly concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer. Bayer no longer uses glyphosate in Roundup sold for residential use, and it has warned it could pull the ingredient from US agricultural markets if lawsuits continue, the AP reports.

Farm groups told the court glyphosate is essential on roughly 300 million acres of US cropland, while environmental and health advocates warned that shutting down state suits would leave many cancer patients with no path to compensation. The Trump administration supported Bayer in the case, reversing the Biden administration's stance. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, with Jackson saying the majority had misinterpreted the federal law's requirements, NPR News reports.

• "In accepting Monsanto's argument and holding that Durnell's failure-to-warn claim is preempted, the Court misunderstands FIFRA's requirements, misinterprets the scope of FIFRA's preemption, and ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered," Jackson wrote in her dissenting opinion.