Supreme Court Considers Bayer’s Appeal to Limit Roundup Litigation

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal aimed at significantly limiting lawsuits that allege the company’s Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. This move could potentially save Bayer billions in damages.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by John Durnell, who claims he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after prolonged exposure to Roundup. A Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a jury’s verdict, awarding Durnell $1.25 million for his cancer diagnosis.

Following the announcement, Bayer’s shares surged nearly 5%. The Supreme Court has yet to schedule a date for the oral arguments in this significant case.

Bayer’s CEO, Bill Anderson, described the court’s decision as “an important step in our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain this litigation.” He emphasized the need for the U.S. legal system to clarify that companies should not face penalties under state laws when they comply with federal warning label requirements.

An attorney representing Durnell did not respond immediately to requests for comment regarding the case.

The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed Bayer’s argument that federal pesticide laws preempt state-level lawsuits concerning pesticide claims. Currently, Bayer is contending with around 65,000 similar claims from plaintiffs across U.S. state and federal courts. Roundup remains one of the most widely utilized weedkillers in the country.

In December, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to consider Bayer’s appeal. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer expressed the administration’s belief that Bayer’s interpretation of the law is correct.

Bayer argues that consumers should not be able to sue under state law for failing to warn about cancer risks associated with Roundup, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found no such risks and does not require any additional warnings. The company maintains that federal law restricts it from adding warnings beyond what the EPA-approved label states.

The Supreme Court’s ruling could significantly impact Bayer’s litigation strategy, as a decision affirming federal law’s preemption over state law claims would likely dismiss the majority of ongoing lawsuits.

Lawyers for Durnell have urged the Supreme Court to reject Bayer’s appeal, arguing that Durnell relied on the company’s advertising, not just the label, when deciding to use Roundup. They contend that Bayer’s marketing failed to adequately inform consumers of the product’s risks.

To date, Bayer has paid approximately $10 billion to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but it has not secured a settlement for future cases. New lawsuits continue to emerge, with plaintiffs alleging that they developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers from using Roundup, whether at home or in the workplace.

Since acquiring Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has maintained that extensive studies indicate Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use. The EPA has consistently determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic and has approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings, as noted in Sauer’s brief to the Supreme Court.

Bayer’s track record in Roundup trials has been mixed. While the company has won several cases, it has also faced substantial jury awards, including a notable $2.1 billion verdict in Georgia in 2025.

Previously, Bayer sought Supreme Court consideration of the Roundup litigation but was denied in 2022. Since then, a federal appeals court has sided with Bayer, diverging from the opinions of other appeals courts.

As the litigation continues, Bayer has indicated it may withdraw Roundup from the U.S. market, having already replaced glyphosate in some consumer products with alternative weed-killing substances.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal aimed at significantly limiting lawsuits that allege the company’s Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. This move could potentially save Bayer billions in damages.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by John Durnell, who claims he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after prolonged exposure to Roundup. A Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a jury’s verdict, awarding Durnell $1.25 million for his cancer diagnosis.

Following the announcement, Bayer’s shares surged nearly 5%. The Supreme Court has yet to schedule a date for the oral arguments in this significant case.

Bayer’s CEO, Bill Anderson, described the court’s decision as “an important step in our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain this litigation.” He emphasized the need for the U.S. legal system to clarify that companies should not face penalties under state laws when they comply with federal warning label requirements.

An attorney representing Durnell did not respond immediately to requests for comment regarding the case.

The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed Bayer’s argument that federal pesticide laws preempt state-level lawsuits concerning pesticide claims. Currently, Bayer is contending with around 65,000 similar claims from plaintiffs across U.S. state and federal courts. Roundup remains one of the most widely utilized weedkillers in the country.

In December, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to consider Bayer’s appeal. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer expressed the administration’s belief that Bayer’s interpretation of the law is correct.

Bayer argues that consumers should not be able to sue under state law for failing to warn about cancer risks associated with Roundup, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found no such risks and does not require any additional warnings. The company maintains that federal law restricts it from adding warnings beyond what the EPA-approved label states.

The Supreme Court’s ruling could significantly impact Bayer’s litigation strategy, as a decision affirming federal law’s preemption over state law claims would likely dismiss the majority of ongoing lawsuits.

Lawyers for Durnell have urged the Supreme Court to reject Bayer’s appeal, arguing that Durnell relied on the company’s advertising, not just the label, when deciding to use Roundup. They contend that Bayer’s marketing failed to adequately inform consumers of the product’s risks.

To date, Bayer has paid approximately $10 billion to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but it has not secured a settlement for future cases. New lawsuits continue to emerge, with plaintiffs alleging that they developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers from using Roundup, whether at home or in the workplace.

Since acquiring Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has maintained that extensive studies indicate Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use. The EPA has consistently determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic and has approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings, as noted in Sauer’s brief to the Supreme Court.

Bayer’s track record in Roundup trials has been mixed. While the company has won several cases, it has also faced substantial jury awards, including a notable $2.1 billion verdict in Georgia in 2025.

Previously, Bayer sought Supreme Court consideration of the Roundup litigation but was denied in 2022. Since then, a federal appeals court has sided with Bayer, diverging from the opinions of other appeals courts.

As the litigation continues, Bayer has indicated it may withdraw Roundup from the U.S. market, having already replaced glyphosate in some consumer products with alternative weed-killing substances.