The Supreme Court Takes on Roundup: The Future of American Agriculture
On January 16th, 2026, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Durnell v. Monsanto Co., a landmark case that has the potential to reshape one of the largest mass tort litigations in American history. Bayer AG (“Bayer”), the German pharmaceutical and agrochemical giant that acquired Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) in 2018, has faced over 200,000 claims alleging that its widely used Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, some such claims predating the acquisition. (David A. Lieb, AP/STAT News). The central question before the Court now is whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) preempts state-law failure to warn claims when the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has approved a pesticide’s label without requiring a cancer warning. (LDM Law). Put simply, after the EPA has approved a label lacking a cancer warning, can failure to warn claims still be brought? This post will examine the history of the Roundup litigation, analyze Bayer’s use of the preemption argument and its potential effects on consumer protection, and consider the implications for American agriculture if the Court rules in Monsanto’s favor.
The original Roundup litigation arose following a 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) report, classifying glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, as a “probable human carcinogen.” (David A. Lieb, AP/STAT News). Following the report’s release, thousands of plaintiffs, primarily those diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, filed suit against Monsanto, arguing that the company failed to warn users of the risks associated with Roundup weed killer. Id. Since acquiring Monsanto, Bayer has paid more than $11 billion in settlements and has resolved over 114,000 individual claims for Roundup. (AGDAILY Reports, AGDAILY). Jury outcomes thus far have been mixed, with 13 verdicts in Bayer’s favor and 11 in the plaintiffs’ favor, including a $2.1 billion award by a Georgia jury in 2025. (David A. Lieb, AP/STAT News). Even so, Bayer recently announced a proposed $7.25 billion class action settlement to resolve thousands of remaining claims, structured through capped annual payments over a 21-year period. (AGDAILY Reports, AGDAILY). Despite these settlement efforts, the underlying legal dispute over federal preemption remains the central unresolved question driving the litigation forward. Id.
The current conflict before the Supreme Court arose from a 2023 jury trial in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, where the jury awarded plaintiff John Durnell $1.25 million in damages against Monsanto Company. Durnell v. Monsanto Co., 707 S.W.3d 828, 830 (E.D. Mo., 2025). Durnell alleged that he developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma after using Roundup in a community garden. Id. at 831. Following an appeal, Bayer’s argument rests on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and FIFRA’s preemption provision, which instructs states to limit labeling requirements differently from those provided under federal statute. (Daniel Zayas, Princeton Legal Journal). Further, Bayer asserted that, because the EPA has concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be a human carcinogen and has thus approved Roundup's labeling which lacks a cancer warning, it cannot be held liable under state law for failing to include a warning that federal regulators have deemed unnecessary. Id.
If the Supreme Court rules against Bayer, the implications could extend well beyond glyphosate. Such a ruling has the potential to cause a flood of new litigation, or potential federal chemical bans. (Daniel Zayas, Princeton Legal Journal). A broad preemption ruling could bar state-law tort claims against manufacturers with EPA-approved labels, effectively shielding companies from state-level accountability. (LDM Law). Consumer protection advocates have warned that such an outcome would deprive injured individuals of their right to seek redress under state tort law, effectively leaving federal regulatory approval as the sole standard of corporate accountability in the pesticide industry. (Daniel Zayas, Princeton Legal Journal).
The practical implications for agriculture are equally important, regardless of the eventual outcome. Glyphosate-based herbicides are fundamental to farming in America, especially to core crops like corn and soybeans. (AGDAILY). Additionally, Bayer has warned that rising litigation costs could threaten the company’s ability to continue producing glyphosate in the United States. (Michal Ruprecht, CNN). In response to the litigation and recognizing the high stakes for the country’s trade economy, President Trump issued an executive order on February 18, 2026, invoking the Defense Production Act to promote domestic production of glyphosate, calling the herbicide “a cornerstone of national food security.” (Michal Ruprecht, CNN).
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 27th, 2026. An opinion is anticipated in June. (U.S. Supreme Court, Oral Argument Archive). Whatever the outcome, the decision will carry far-reaching consequences beyond Bayer and Roundup. A ruling in favor of the federal preemption argument could improve regulatory clarity for manufacturers but would do so at the expense of state-level consumers and their respective protections. Conversely, a ruling against Bayer could leave the agricultural industry scrambling in an already highly regulated space. The high stakes at play here reflect the tensions between federal regulation and state tort law in the United States.