The U.S. Supreme Court will review Bayer’s appeal seeking to bar thousands of state lawsuits that claim Roundup causes cancer. The central question is whether EPA approval of Roundup without a cancer warning preempts state-law claims. Bayer has reserved about $16 billion and faces roughly 181,000 suits; the decision could shape whether plaintiffs can pursue damages in state courts.
Supreme Court Will Review Bayer Appeal Seeking To Block Thousands Of Roundup Lawsuits
FILE - Containers of Roundup are displayed for sale on a store shelf in San Francisco, Feb. 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Haven Daley, File)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review an appeal from global agrochemical company BayerRoundup — whose active ingredient is glyphosate — can cause cancer and that Bayer failed to warn consumers.
What the Court Will Decide
The justices will consider whether approval of Roundup by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which did not require a cancer warning on the product, preempts plaintiffs from pursuing claims in state courts. In short: does federal regulatory approval bar state-law lawsuits?
Background and Stakes
Some scientific studies have linked glyphosate to cancer, though the EPA has concluded that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" when used as directed. Bayer disputes claims that Roundup causes cancer but has set aside about $16 billion to resolve litigation. The company faces roughly 181,000 Roundup claims, most filed by residential users.
Bayer acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018. The company has removed glyphosate from Roundup formulations sold in the U.S. residential lawn-and-garden retail market, but glyphosate remains in agricultural products used with genetically modified seeds such as corn, soybeans and cotton. These formulations are designed to allow farmers to reduce tillage while maintaining yields.
Notable Cases And Legal History
The Supreme Court will review a Missouri case in which a St. Louis jury awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup in a community garden. The court in 2022 declined to hear a separate California case that produced an award of more than $86 million to a married couple.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Bayer says the high court should intervene because lower courts have reached conflicting outcomes; in 2024 the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bayer’s favor. Meanwhile, the company has lobbied state legislatures to pass laws limiting such lawsuits; Georgia and North Dakota have enacted protections that bar these claims.
Political And Industry Reactions
The Trump administration intervened in support of Bayer, reversing the Biden administration’s earlier position — a move that has drawn criticism from some public-health advocates. Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said in a statement that it is time for the U.S. legal system to make clear that companies complying with federal labeling requirements should not be punished under state law.
“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,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson.
Environmental and public-health groups counter that Bayer is seeking to deny victims their day in court. Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said it would be "a sad day in America" if the court deprived thousands of people suffering from cancer of their ability to pursue claims.
What Could Happen Next
It is not yet known whether the case will be argued this spring or at the start of the next court term in October. Bayer has warned it may need to consider withdrawing glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if the litigation continues to threaten its business.
Follow AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
Help us improve.
