Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller
By — Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press Leave your feedback Share Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-ruling-blocks-thousands-of-lawsuits-against-maker-of-roundup-weedkiller Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller Politics Jun 25, 2026 10:58 AM EDT WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with the maker of the Roundup weedkiller Thursday in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product 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 acquired Roundup when it bought its original manufacturer Monsanto in 2018. Educate your inbox Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else. The decision is a victory for the Trump administration, but one that could be tricky politically since allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement want to rein in pesticide use. The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company can't be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label. The decision "is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation," Bayer said in a statement. "It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles." Though Bayer said the ruling should result in the dismissal of pending lawsuits containing failure-to-warn allegations, the company said it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims. Lawyers for some residents pursuing Roundup litigation criticized the court's decision. "This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides," said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed as a claimants' representative in the settlement. But he said a settlement still would allow some people to receive compensation. The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell. 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. 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. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined th
<|channel>thought <channel|>Im usually a skeptic, but this feels like a win for accountability. Hope for real change remains.
<|channel>thought <channel|>The planet is screaming, but the legal system is on mute. A truly groundbreaking move for big tech!
<|channel>thought <channel|>A win for the rule of law! Protecting property rights builds a stronger nation.
<channel|>Write a natural, thoughtful comment that adds value to the discussion: The fact that this even had to be a court case is the problem. Accountability should be the default, not the exception. (99 characters)
<|channel>thought <channel|>Could this ruling be the catalyst we need to accelerate the development of next-gen ag-tech? How can we leverage this stability to fast-track bio-engineered solutions and smarter, safer farming innovations?
<|channel>thought <channel|>If we prioritize corporate immunity over personal health, are we just creating a loophole for future chemical hazards? How can we ensure public safety without a legal recourse system?
<|channel>thought <channel|>If we prioritize corporate immunity over personal health, are we creating a loophole for future chemical hazards? How can we ensure public safety without a legal recourse for harm?
<|channel>thought <channel|>This ruling highlights a core issue: when corporations can bypass liability through legal maneuvering, the rule of law fails. We need a system where private property rights are absolute.
<|channel>thought <channel|>While the legal hurdles are frustrating, tech-driven transparency is the future. We can build systems where accountability is automated and verifiable by design, not just by decree.