The Supreme Court has invited the Department of Justice to weigh in on Bayer’s Roundup cancer litigation appeal, potentially saving the company billions and setting a precedent that could dramatically limit consumer product liability lawsuits nationwide.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has requested the Solicitor General’s input on Bayer’s petition to review Roundup cancer lawsuits, signaling potential interest in hearing the case.
- Bayer has already paid nearly $11 billion to settle most Roundup cancer claims, but still faces thousands of pending lawsuits.
- The central legal question is whether federal pesticide regulations (FIFRA) should preempt state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits.
- Lower courts remain divided on the issue, with the 9th and 11th Circuits ruling for plaintiffs while the 3rd Circuit sided with Bayer.
- A Supreme Court ruling in Bayer’s favor could severely restrict Americans’ ability to seek damages for injuries allegedly caused by EPA-approved products.
Supreme Court Signals Interest in Landmark Roundup Case
In a significant development for both corporate interests and consumer rights advocates, the Supreme Court has requested input from the Department of Justice regarding Bayer’s petition to review ongoing Roundup cancer litigation. This move suggests the Court may be considering taking up the case, which could potentially end thousands of lawsuits claiming that the popular weedkiller causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has been fighting these claims since the acquisition, maintaining that glyphosate-based Roundup is safe despite scientific evidence suggesting otherwise.
At the heart of this legal battle is whether federal law preempts state law claims that Monsanto failed to warn consumers about cancer risks. Bayer argues that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which restricts states from imposing labeling requirements beyond federal standards, should shield the company from liability. The company hopes a favorable Supreme Court ruling could effectively end the litigation nightmare that has cost it billions and significantly damaged its stock value since the Monsanto acquisition.
The Science and Settlement History Behind Roundup Claims
The legal challenges began after the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” in humans in 2015. This scientific finding directly contradicted the EPA’s assessment that glyphosate poses no risk to human health when used according to label instructions. The contradiction between these regulatory bodies created the perfect storm for litigation, as plaintiffs’ attorneys could point to credible scientific evidence while Bayer claimed compliance with U.S. regulatory standards.
“The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the active ingredient that most Roundup formulas used to have, glyphosate, as a ‘probable carcinogen’ in humans,” shared Drugwatch.
In 2020, facing mounting legal pressure after losing several high-profile jury trials with massive damage awards, Bayer agreed to pay nearly $11 billion to settle approximately 80% of existing Roundup claims. However, this settlement did not resolve all cases, and new lawsuits continue to be filed. As of June 2025, there are still 4,424 open Roundup lawsuit cases consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation in California, with potentially thousands more in state courts across the country. The company has since removed glyphosate-based Roundup products from residential markets but continues to sell them for agricultural use.
Constitutional and Regulatory Implications
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could have far-reaching implications beyond just Roundup cases. At stake is the fundamental question of whether federal regulatory approval shields manufacturers from state-level liability claims. Lower courts have been divided on this issue: the 9th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled in favor of plaintiffs, finding that FIFRA does not preempt state failure-to-warn claims, while the 3rd Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, creating a circuit split that increases the likelihood of Supreme Court review.
“Roundup lawsuits filed against Monsanto (now Bayer) claim the weed killer caused cancer, and the company failed to warn about the health risks of glyphosate,” shared Drugwatch.
This case represents another battleground in the ongoing tension between federal regulatory authority and states’ rights to protect their citizens. Conservative legal scholars have generally favored federal preemption in cases involving nationally regulated products, arguing that manufacturers cannot realistically comply with potentially 50 different state warning requirements. Liberal scholars typically favor preserving state tort remedies as an essential check on corporate behavior and regulatory capture. The Trump administration consistently supported corporate preemption arguments, and it remains to be seen whether the Biden DOJ will recommend the Court take this case.
What’s at Stake for Consumers and Corporations
For conservatives concerned about government overreach, this case presents an interesting dilemma. While limiting regulations typically aligns with conservative values, the possibility that federal bureaucracy could shield corporations from accountability for harmful products runs counter to principles of individual responsibility and justice. If Bayer prevails, it could establish a precedent making it virtually impossible for Americans harmed by products with EPA-approved labels to seek compensation, effectively placing unelected federal regulators’ judgments above the rights of citizens to seek redress in court.
Bayer views the Supreme Court’s request for the Solicitor General’s input as a positive sign, hoping for a decision within a year that could potentially save the company billions in future liability. For cancer patients who believe their illness resulted from Roundup exposure, however, the stakes are literally life and death. The outcome of this case will determine whether thousands of Americans with non-Hodgkin lymphoma can continue pursuing claims against a chemical giant, or whether corporate immunity will prevail based on a federal regulatory shield that many argue has been compromised by industry influence.
