Federal law requires manufacturers to use EPA-approved labels unless the EPA itself approves a different one.
In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court determined that federal pesticide law shields Monsanto from state-level lawsuits alleging Roundup caused cancer in tens of thousands of Americans, placing the authority to define public safety squarely within the federal regulatory apparatus rather than the hands of injured individuals and local juries. The decision turns on a fundamental tension in democratic governance: when scientific bodies disagree and citizens believe they have been harmed, who holds the power to say what is safe? For more than 100,000 plaintiffs — among them a Missouri gardener who spent decades tending his land only to develop lymphoma — the courthouse door has quietly closed, leaving the question of accountability to regulators rather than courts.
- Over 100,000 people who allege Roundup's glyphosate caused their cancers now find their legal path largely extinguished by a single federal ruling.
- A genuine scientific fault line runs through the case — the EPA calls glyphosate safe while the World Health Organization's cancer agency classifies it as probably carcinogenic to humans.
- The 7-2 majority held that FIFRA grants the EPA exclusive dominion over pesticide labeling, meaning Monsanto cannot be punished under state law for omitting a warning the federal government never required.
- Bayer, which absorbed Monsanto in 2018 along with its mounting legal exposure, is now pressing a proposed 21-year settlement before a Missouri court as its primary path to containing the decade-long litigation wave.
- The Trump administration's brief supporting Monsanto, paired with an executive order promoting glyphosate production, signals that federal regulatory posture — not courtroom verdicts — will define the herbicide's future.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal pesticide law bars Americans from suing Monsanto in state courts over Roundup's alleged failure to warn consumers about cancer risks. Written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by six colleagues across ideological lines, the decision rests on FIFRA — a 1947 statute granting the EPA exclusive authority over pesticide labeling. Because the EPA has repeatedly found glyphosate safe and has not required a cancer warning, the majority concluded that Monsanto cannot be held liable under state law for omitting one.
The case arrived at the Court through John Durnell, a Missouri gardener who spent more than twenty years spraying Roundup before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A jury had awarded him $1.25 million in 2023, but Thursday's ruling effectively erases that victory and forecloses similar claims for the more than 100,000 plaintiffs who have pursued Monsanto in courts across the country.
The scientific backdrop remains genuinely contested. The EPA reaffirmed glyphosate's safety in 2019 and 2020, while a World Health Organization working group classified it as probably carcinogenic to humans in 2015 — a divergence that ignited nearly a decade of litigation. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, though their reasoning was not detailed in available reporting.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, welcomed the ruling as a victory for regulatory clarity and is now seeking final approval of a proposed settlement that would resolve current and future claims through payments spread across up to 21 years. The Trump administration, which filed a brief backing Monsanto and signed an executive order promoting glyphosate production, framed the outcome as a reaffirmation that federal regulators — not state juries — should determine what warnings protect the public. For the plaintiffs who believed they deserved their day in court, that determination has arrived as a closed door.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court closed the courthouse door to thousands of Americans who say Roundup gave them cancer. In a 7-2 decision, the justices ruled that federal pesticide law prevents people from suing Monsanto in state courts over the company's failure to warn consumers about the herbicide's alleged carcinogenic risks. The decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas, hinged on a 1947 federal statute called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act—FIFRA—which gives the EPA exclusive authority over pesticide labeling.
The case centered on John Durnell, a Missouri gardener who spent more than two decades spraying Roundup on his property before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a blood cancer. He was one of more than 100,000 people across the country who have sued Monsanto, alleging that glyphosate, the herbicide's active ingredient, caused their cancers. In 2023, a jury sided with Durnell on his failure-to-warn claim and awarded him $1.25 million in damages. But the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday effectively voids that victory and blocks the vast majority of similar cases from proceeding in state courts.
The tension at the heart of the case reflects a genuine scientific dispute. The EPA has repeatedly examined glyphosate and concluded it is safe to use and does not require a cancer warning on product labels. The agency reached this determination in 2019 and 2020, and has continued to approve herbicide labels without cancer warnings. But in 2015, a working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer—part of the World Health Organization—classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans." That classification sparked the wave of litigation that has consumed the courts for nearly a decade. Monsanto, now owned by German pharmaceutical giant Bayer since 2018, argued that FIFRA's framework prohibited it from unilaterally adding a cancer warning to its label without EPA approval or requirement to do so.
The Supreme Court agreed. The majority opinion emphasized that federal law requires manufacturers to use EPA-approved labels unless the EPA itself approves or mandates a different one. Because the EPA has determined Roundup is safe and has not required a cancer warning, Monsanto cannot be held liable under state law for omitting one. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, though the opinion did not detail their reasoning.
Bayer called the decision "good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation," and said it should "significantly contain the Roundup litigation." The company is now pursuing a proposed settlement before a Missouri state court that would resolve current and future claims through annual payments spanning up to 21 years. That settlement still awaits final approval. Meanwhile, Bayer says it no longer sells glyphosate-based Roundup products directly, though other versions of the herbicide remain available through retailers like Home Depot and Lowe's.
The ruling also represents a political victory for the Trump administration, which filed a brief supporting Monsanto's position. The Justice Department argued that the EPA, not state juries, should determine whether pesticide warnings are necessary to protect public health. The administration's support for the company aligns with an executive order President Trump signed in February aimed at boosting glyphosate production, citing concerns that restricted access to the herbicide threatened agricultural productivity and the domestic food supply. For the plaintiffs who believed they had been harmed by the product and deserved their day in court, the decision closes that path forward.
Citas Notables
The U.S. Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles.— Bayer statement to CBS News
Federal law requires Monsanto to use an EPA-approved label unless the EPA approves or requires a different label.— Supreme Court majority opinion, delivered by Justice Brett Kavanaugh
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does federal law trump what a state jury decided about Monsanto's responsibility to warn people?
Because Congress wrote FIFRA to create one national system for pesticide safety. The EPA reviews the science, approves the label, and that label becomes the floor and ceiling. States can't force a company to say something the EPA hasn't approved—that would undermine the whole regulatory scheme.
But the International Cancer Agency said glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Doesn't that matter?
It matters, and it's real tension. The WHO's cancer research arm and the EPA looked at the same evidence and reached opposite conclusions. The Court sided with the EPA's judgment, not because it's necessarily more correct, but because that's whose job it is under federal law.
So John Durnell won his case in 2023 and got $1.25 million. Now what happens to that?
The Supreme Court ruling essentially voids it. He can't appeal to a higher state court because the Court has now said state courts shouldn't have heard the case at all. The decision blocks thousands of similar lawsuits that were pending.
Is there any path left for people who believe they were harmed?
Bayer is pushing a settlement that would pay out over 21 years, but it's not guaranteed. Beyond that, the only real recourse would be if the EPA itself changed its mind and required a cancer warning—then the legal landscape would shift entirely.
What's the political angle here?
Trump's administration backed Monsanto, and the President signed an order promoting glyphosate production. So this decision aligns with that agenda. But it's complicated because some conservative allies care deeply about limiting pesticide use, so the politics aren't clean.