Story perspectives

Supreme Court Bars State Lawsuits Against Bayer’s Roundup

6/27/2026

Summary

Supreme Court Blocks Bayer

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Bayer cannot be sued in state courts over Roundup warning claims.
The Court settled Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, holding FIFRA preempts warning claims because the EPA found glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer.
Bayer will keep pursuing a $7.25 billion settlement in Missouri with payments up to 21 years.
Farmer groups praised the ruling while Farmers Union president Aaron Lehman called it a step backward for health.

Summary

Luna Introduces Bill

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) will introduce a bill to strip firms of shields after the June 25 ruling.
Scientists at a Seattle symposium said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s glyphosate review used weaker evidence than IARC’s 2015 “probably carcinogenic” finding.
Activist Kelly Ryerson, “Glyphosate Girl,” called the decision a chemical attack and urged voters to punish Trump administration.
Babe Vani Hari called the ruling sickening and urged Congress to act.

History

Historical Context

The 1993 Supreme Court ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow replaced the Frye “general acceptance” test with a reliability gatekeeping standard, extended to all expert testimony in Joiner (1997) and Kumho (1999). By 2020 over 1,200 federal cases cited Daubert to vet pesticide risk evidence. The 2024 Bayer v. Durnell decision uses that gatekeeping to preempt state glyphosate warnings, sparking congressional bills and activist challenges.

1 of 3

Supreme Court Blocks Bayer

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Bayer cannot be sued in state courts over Roundup warning claims.
The Court settled Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, holding FIFRA preempts warning claims because the EPA found glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer.
Bayer will keep pursuing a $7.25 billion settlement in Missouri with payments up to 21 years.
Farmer groups praised the ruling while Farmers Union president Aaron Lehman called it a step backward for health.

1 / 3