Supreme Court grapples with multibillion-dollar wave of lawsuits over Roundup cancer claims

Health Supreme Court grapples with multibillion-dollar wave of lawsuits over Roundup cancer claims Weedkiller maker Monsanto is backed by Trump administration, while some MAHA allies want to rein in pesticide use Manage alerts for this article Email this article Share this article By Associated PressApril 27, 2026 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed divided Monday over whether to block thousands of lawsuits alleging the maker of the weedkiller Roundup failed to warn people it could cause cancer. The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer, which owns Roundup maker Monsanto.Advertisement Several justices seemed sympathetic to the company’s argument that it can’t be sued under state law because federal regulators have found Roundup likely doesn’t cause cancer. Others, though, grilled attorneys about whether that wrongly stops states from responding to changing research. Roundup maker Monsanto is backed by the Trump administration, a legal position that’s at odds with some allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement who want to rein in pesticide use. The case before the court was filed by a Missouri man named John Durnell. His lawsuit said he developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood association’s “spray guy,” using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community.Advertisement A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. It’s one of thousands of similar cases, including some multibillion-dollar damage awards. There’s still fierce debate about cancer and Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015, but the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed. The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argues that it’s required to follow those federal standards — not the state laws that Durnell and others have sued under. EPA reviews its labeling determinations every 15 years, which can be a relatively long period in terms of scientific advancement, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether waiting for EPA review ties the hands of state courts. “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 questioned. Durnell’s lawyers, on the other hand, say that federal law doesn’t stop Bayer from putting a warning about possible cancer risk on its products under state law. But Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan both seemed concerned that facing liability under a thicket of different state laws could make it tough for companies and undermine the purpose of federal regulations. “Do you think it’s uniformity when each state can require different things?” Kavanaugh said. Bayer disputes the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases, and proposed a major settlement earlier this year. At the same time, it has tried to persuade states to pass laws barring new cases, and a few have agreed. The company has faced more than 100,000 Roundup claims, mostly from home users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market. The company has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if the lawsuits persist.Advertisement American Farm Bureau Federation said in court documents that removing it from the market would have an “immediate, devastating risk to America’s food supply” at time when the industry is already under pressure. Environmental groups say Bayer wants to keep juries out of the lawsuits because of its state court losses. Meanwhile, pesticides have created a rift between the administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, who were also frustrated with an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate’s production. Kennedy himself has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons. Dozens of MAHA activists and supporters on Monday gathered outside the Supreme Court for what they called a “People vs. Poison” rally to decry Monsanto’s efforts to shield itself from lawsuits. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by the end of June. — Lindsay Whitehurst Associated Press writer Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report. Cancer, legal, Supreme Court Submit a correction requestReprints Associated Press Newsletter Understand how science, health policy, and medicine shape the world every day Recommended Politics April 27, 2026 STAT Plus: Dems say RFK Jr. has a pattern of failing to answer their questions Health April 27, 2026 Trump administration warns against using federal dollars on fentanyl test strips Advertisement Health Care Inc. Newsletter April 27, 2026 STAT Plus: An insider reveals the real goals of prior authorization Exclusive April 26, 2026 STAT Plus: Doctor, wife of acting U.S. attorney general, appointed to NIH advisory council Biotech April 24, 2026 STAT Plus: FDA to speed up review of three psychedelics as mental health treatments Subscriber Picks