The U.S. Supreme Court chamber buzzed with tension on April 27 as justices dissected a high-stakes battle between federal regulators and state courts. At the center: Roundup, the glyphosate-based weedkiller from Bayer-owned Monsanto that’s spawned over 100,000 lawsuits alleging cancer links. Bayer wants the court to rule that federal pesticide law blocks state failure-to-warn claims. A decision, due by June, could wipe out billions in liability—or keep jury doors open.
John Durnell, a Missouri groundskeeper, won $1.25 million in 2023 after a jury found Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Monsanto appealed, arguing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts such verdicts. FIFRA bars states from imposing labeling “in addition to or different from” EPA rules. The EPA has repeatedly deemed glyphosate “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” approving labels without cancer warnings. Adding one without agency nod? That would misbrand the product under federal law, Bayer contends.
Paul Clement, Monsanto’s lawyer and ex-solicitor general, drove the point home. “Congress plainly wanted uniformity when it came to the safety warnings on a pesticide’s label,” he told the justices, per The New Lede. Glyphosate, sold since 1974, faces the most scrutiny of any herbicide. Regulators worldwide back the EPA’s safety call, Clement said. State juries overriding that? Chaos for farmers relying on the chemical.
But uniformity has costs. Chief Justice John Roberts probed the downside. “Well, it does undermine the uniformity,” he said. “On the other hand, if it turns out they were right, it might have been good if they had an opportunity to do something, to call this danger to the attention of people while the federal government was going through its process.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson flagged EPA’s 15-year reregistration gaps. “Lots of things can happen in science,” she noted, as quoted in Slashdot citing NPR.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh leaned Bayer’s way. “The way you account for new science is on a process that changes the requirements going forward, not on a process that retroactively tells you that what you did yesterday as ordered by EPA is somehow illegal,” he remarked, according to Courthouse News. Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general, echoed that. “Missouri thus requires adding cancer warnings but federal law requires EPA to approve new warnings,” she argued.
Durnell’s side pushed back. FIFRA doesn’t demand judicial deference to EPA labels, they said. State laws mirror federal misbranding bans—requiring “adequate warnings.” Juries can enforce that without conflicting, per SCOTUSblog. California’s Prop 65 mandates glyphosate cancer warnings, highlighting state flex. Yet Bayer sells only to pros now, dodging consumer suits via settlements.
Bayer’s tab? Massive. A $10.9 billion 2020 deal covered many claims. February brought a $7.25 billion push for more, per SCOTUSblog. President Trump’s February executive order tied glyphosate to national security via Defense Production Act. Critics see favoritism; Bayer lobbied hard, and some Trump allies repped them.
Science splits sharply. The International Agency for Research on Cancer tagged glyphosate “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. EPA disagreed, finding weak evidence after reviewing IARC data plus more. A 2020 EPA assessment got vacated for flaws, but the agency reaffirmed safety. Lower courts divide: Third Circuit backs preemption; Ninth and Eleventh don’t.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned gaps. “If we say it’s so hazardous we can ban it, why can’t we say it’s so hazardous that there can be tort recoveries for it?” per Courthouse News. Protesters rallied outside, chanting against Bayer. Farmers warn a loss could yank Roundup, hiking food costs.
Bayer’s CEO Bill Anderson called for closure: “It is time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements,” as noted in Straight Arrow News. Stanford’s Nora Freeman Engstrom predicts a Bayer win closes most books—but not all. States might pivot to design defects.
And yet. Glyphosate powers no-till farming, cutting soil erosion. Pull it? Ag upheavals. But plaintiffs’ pain is real. Tens of thousands blame non-Hodgkin lymphoma on decades of spraying. Juries sided big before: multibillion verdicts.
Roberts cut to core. States act fast on dangers. EPA lags. Balance tips toward feds? Or juries? Oral arguments hinted split. Conservative justices eyed preemption. Liberals stressed science lags. Kavanaugh’s uniformity push swayed some.
Bayer holds breath. A win shields pesticides broadly. Loss? Floodgates. FIFRA’s text rules. But so does equity. Court watches.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication