Supreme Court Rules for Bayer — What the Roundup Cancer Lawsuit Ruling Means for Victims
By Steve Levine
Published: February 11, 2026 · Updated: July 1, 2026
🚨 KEY UPDATE — June 25, 2026
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell (No. 24-1068), holding that federal pesticide law (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims against Roundup's maker. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Bayer says the ruling should lead courts to dismiss failure-to-warn claims in pending cases.
The ruling does not end all Roundup litigation. Other legal theories, such as defective design or negligence, were not decided by the Court and may still be available in some cases. Bayer's separate proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement, still pending court approval, remains on the table and may now be the more realistic path to compensation for many claimants.
➡ Start a Free Case Review Now
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell (No. 24-1068), holding that federal pesticide law (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims against Roundup's maker. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Bayer says the ruling should lead courts to dismiss failure-to-warn claims in pending cases.
The ruling does not end all Roundup litigation. Other legal theories, such as defective design or negligence, were not decided by the Court and may still be available in some cases. Bayer's separate proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement, still pending court approval, remains on the table and may now be the more realistic path to compensation for many claimants.
➡ Start a Free Case Review Now
The Supreme Court Case That Reshaped Roundup Litigation
On January 16, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a case with the potential to reshape one of the largest mass tort litigations in American history. The Court heard oral argument on April 27, 2026, and on June 25, 2026 ruled 7-2 for Monsanto. The question before the Court was narrow but consequential: Does federal pesticide law prevent cancer victims from suing Roundup's maker for failing to warn them? The Court's answer was yes.The case originated in St. Louis, where John Durnell sued Monsanto after developing Non-Hodgkin lymphoma he alleged was caused by years of Roundup use. A jury awarded him more than $1 million, finding Monsanto liable for failing to warn consumers about cancer risks. The jury rejected defective design and negligence claims but unanimously agreed the company should have warned users.
Bayer — which acquired Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018 — appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that because the EPA approved Roundup's label without requiring a cancer warning, no state court could hold the company liable for not adding one. This legal concept is called federal preemption.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that because Durnell's failure-to-warn claim would impose a labeling requirement "in addition to or different from" the one set by the EPA, FIFRA expressly preempts it. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing that the majority "misunderstands FIFRA's requirements" and "leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered."
The ruling does not automatically end Roundup litigation, but Bayer says it should result in the dismissal of failure-to-warn claims — the primary legal theory in most pending cases.
What Is Federal Preemption and Why Does It Matter?
Federal preemption is the legal principle that when federal law governs a subject, state laws cannot impose different or additional requirements. Bayer argues that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — the law that gives the EPA authority over pesticide labeling — preempts state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits.In plain terms: Bayer says it followed federal rules, so states cannot punish it for not adding a cancer warning that the EPA didn't require.
Plaintiffs' attorneys argued the opposite — that EPA approval of a label doesn't mean the label is safe, just that the manufacturer never asked the EPA to add a cancer warning. Durnell's legal team pointed out that Monsanto updated Roundup's label 44 times over the years and even proposed adding cancer information as part of a prior settlement. The company could have sought a label change but chose not to.
Lower courts had been split on this question. The Third Circuit sided with Bayer. The Ninth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, and state courts in Missouri, California, and Oregon had allowed lawsuits to proceed. The Supreme Court took the case to resolve that conflict — and sided with Bayer's reading of FIFRA.
The Timeline: How the Case Played Out
Monsanto v. Durnell — Supreme Court Timeline
✅ April 4, 2025: Monsanto files petition for Supreme Court review
✅ December 2025: Trump administration Solicitor General urges Court to hear the case
✅ January 16, 2026: Supreme Court agrees to hear the case
✅ February 17, 2026: Bayer separately proposes a $7.25 billion class-action settlement
✅ April 27, 2026: Oral argument held at the Supreme Court
✅ June 25, 2026: Supreme Court rules 7-2 for Monsanto; FIFRA preempts the failure-to-warn claim
⚠️ Bayer says the ruling should lead to dismissal of failure-to-warn claims in pending cases. Other legal theories were not decided by the Court. Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion settlement remains pending court approval.
✅ April 4, 2025: Monsanto files petition for Supreme Court review
✅ December 2025: Trump administration Solicitor General urges Court to hear the case
✅ January 16, 2026: Supreme Court agrees to hear the case
✅ February 17, 2026: Bayer separately proposes a $7.25 billion class-action settlement
✅ April 27, 2026: Oral argument held at the Supreme Court
✅ June 25, 2026: Supreme Court rules 7-2 for Monsanto; FIFRA preempts the failure-to-warn claim
⚠️ Bayer says the ruling should lead to dismissal of failure-to-warn claims in pending cases. Other legal theories were not decided by the Court. Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion settlement remains pending court approval.
What the Ruling Means for Pending Roundup Lawsuits
Because the Supreme Court found that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims, the consequences for Roundup litigation are significant:• Bayer says pending failure-to-warn claims should be dismissed — that theory was the primary legal basis in the vast majority of Roundup cases, including the roughly 3,900 cases still active in the federal MDL in California as of June 2026.
• New lawsuits are much harder to file — plaintiffs would need to rely on alternative legal theories like defective design or negligence, which the ruling did not address and which juries have historically been less receptive to.
• Bayer's settlement leverage increases — commentators say the ruling should incentivize plaintiffs with weakened claims to participate in Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion settlement rather than continue litigating.
• Broader impact beyond Roundup — other pesticide and chemical manufacturers may point to the ruling to argue their own EPA-approved labels also preempt state failure-to-warn claims.
The ruling does not disturb settlements Bayer has already paid, and it does not resolve every legal theory available to plaintiffs — some cases built on defective-design or negligence claims may still proceed depending on the jurisdiction. Legal analysts note the decision is a major setback for pending plaintiffs but, per Bayer's own public statements, is not expected to end Roundup litigation outright.
The Dissent's View
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the majority. Jackson wrote that the Court "misunderstands FIFRA's requirements, misinterprets the scope of FIFRA's preemption, and ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered." The dissent argued that EPA approval of a label does not mean the agency considered and rejected a cancer warning — only that Monsanto never sought to add one.• Bayer has continued settling cases — the company set aside an additional $1.37 billion for Roundup litigation in 2025 and has said it plans to "significantly contain" the lawsuits, including through the proposed $7.25 billion settlement.
• Recent jury verdicts predate the ruling — awards including $2.1 billion (Georgia, 2025), $611 million (Missouri, upheld on appeal), and $175 million (Pennsylvania, upheld on appeal) were decided before the Supreme Court's decision and are not automatically undone by it, though they may be subject to further appeal in light of the ruling.
Check If You Qualify — Free Case Review
Why the Ruling Changes the Calculus for Victims
Several forces are now converging for anyone who used Roundup and was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma:1. The Supreme Court's ruling weakens the failure-to-warn theory. That theory was the primary legal basis for most pending Roundup lawsuits. Attorneys are now evaluating which cases can proceed on other theories, such as defective design, and which claimants may be better served by Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion settlement.
2. Bayer's financial health remains a factor in settlement value. Bayer was worth roughly $63 billion when it bought Monsanto in 2018; its market value has since declined substantially. Average settlements in the original program ranged from $100,000 to $160,000 per plaintiff. Legal analysts have said a company of Bayer's reduced size is unlikely to fund materially larger payouts in future rounds.
3. Statutes of limitations are still running. Most states give you one to three years from diagnosis — or from when you should have known Roundup may have caused your cancer — to file. Miss that window and you're permanently barred, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Monsanto Papers: What Bayer Doesn't Want You to See
One of the most damaging elements of Roundup litigation has been the release of internal Monsanto documents — known as the "Monsanto Papers" — which revealed systematic efforts to downplay glyphosate's cancer risks.Key revelations include:
• Ghostwritten safety studies: In December 2025, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted a widely cited 2000 study on glyphosate's safety after finding that Bayer influenced the research and contributed to drafting the paper without disclosing its involvement.
• Suppressed research: Internal emails showed Monsanto employees discussing how to "orchestrate" favorable scientific reviews and build networks of scientists to work "directly or indirectly/behind the scenes" to promote glyphosate safety.
• Regulatory influence: Documents suggested Monsanto had close relationships with EPA officials and attempted to influence the agency's review of glyphosate.
These documents have been central to jury verdicts. The retraction of the safety study in December 2025 gives Bayer less scientific cover heading into the Supreme Court case.
The Trump Administration's Role
In a significant development, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer filed a brief supporting Bayer's position, urging the Supreme Court to take the case. Sauer argued that allowing state courts to require cancer warnings that the EPA has not mandated would "allow juries to ignore the expert scientific decisions made by the U.S. EPA."This is a reversal from the Biden administration's position. In 2022, Biden's Solicitor General told the Court not to hear a similar Bayer appeal, stating that "FIFRA does not preempt" such claims. The change in administration changed the legal landscape.
Bayer had previously been rejected by the Supreme Court in 2022. The Trump administration's support was a key factor in the Court agreeing to hear the case this time.
Roundup Litigation by the Numbers
Key Statistics — June 2026
• Total claims filed: ~170,000
• Claims settled: ~100,000+
• Cases in federal MDL (California): ~3,900
• Total paid by Bayer: $11+ billion
• Additional reserves set aside: $1.37 billion (September 2025)
• Proposed class-action settlement: $7.25 billion (Feb. 17, 2026; pending court approval)
• Average settlement (original program): $100,000 – $160,000
• Largest jury verdict: $2.1 billion (Georgia, March 2025)
• Supreme Court ruling: 7-2 for Monsanto, June 25, 2026 (Monsanto v. Durnell)
• Total claims filed: ~170,000
• Claims settled: ~100,000+
• Cases in federal MDL (California): ~3,900
• Total paid by Bayer: $11+ billion
• Additional reserves set aside: $1.37 billion (September 2025)
• Proposed class-action settlement: $7.25 billion (Feb. 17, 2026; pending court approval)
• Average settlement (original program): $100,000 – $160,000
• Largest jury verdict: $2.1 billion (Georgia, March 2025)
• Supreme Court ruling: 7-2 for Monsanto, June 25, 2026 (Monsanto v. Durnell)
How Roundup Settlement Payouts Actually Work
Roundup settlements use a point-scoring tier system that most people don't understand. When Bayer agreed to settle a large group of lawsuits in 2020, the company set up this system to determine how much each plaintiff would receive:Each case is evaluated based on factors including:
• Type and stage of cancer
• Age of the plaintiff
• Duration and frequency of Roundup use
• Impact on ability to work
• Intensity of medical treatment
• Whether the person has passed away (wrongful death claims score higher)
• Strength of the causal link between exposure and diagnosis
These points sort cases into settlement tiers. Higher scores get larger payouts. Unlike a class action where everyone gets the same check, each Roundup plaintiff receives compensation based on their individual circumstances.
Who Can Still File a Roundup Cancer Lawsuit?
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, attorneys are still reviewing new Roundup cases, though claims built solely on a failure-to-warn theory face a materially higher risk of dismissal. Whether a claim can proceed — or is better resolved through Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion settlement — depends on the facts of the case and the state where it's filed. You may qualify for a case review if:• You used Roundup weed killer (at work, on a farm, or at home)
• You were later diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) or a related cancer
• Your state's statute of limitations has not expired (typically 1–3 years from diagnosis)
High-risk groups that attorneys are reviewing include:
• Farmers and agricultural workers who used Roundup in crop production
• Landscapers and groundskeepers who sprayed glyphosate regularly
• Homeowners who applied Roundup in yards and gardens
• Families of deceased victims filing wrongful death claims
Qualifying cancer diagnoses include Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), Follicular Lymphoma, Mantle Cell Lymphoma, Burkitt Lymphoma, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), and Peripheral T-cell Lymphomas.
Start Your Free Case Review
What Evidence Do You Need?
Strong documentation can significantly strengthen a Roundup case. Typical evidence includes:• Medical records confirming your cancer diagnosis and treatment history
• Proof of Roundup use — purchase receipts, photos, timecards, work orders, equipment logs
• Employment records — if you were exposed through work (farming, landscaping, groundskeeping)
• Witness statements — coworkers, employers, or family members who can confirm your exposure
• Notes on usage — when and how often you used Roundup, how long each application took, and whether you wore protective gear
Major Roundup Verdicts and Settlements
Since 2018, juries have consistently sided with Roundup cancer victims. Here are the most significant outcomes:• $2.1 billion — Georgia (March 2025): A homeowner who used Roundup for 20 years developed NHL.
• $611 million — Missouri (upheld on appeal, 2025): Four plaintiffs. Missouri Supreme Court rejected Bayer's attempt to overturn.
• $175 million — Pennsylvania (affirmed on appeal): Ernest Caranci, a home gardener.
• $289 million — California (2018): Dewayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper. Later reduced to $78 million.
• $2 billion — California (2019): A married couple who both developed lymphoma. Later reduced.
• $80 million — Federal jury (2019): Edwin Hardeman, diagnosed with NHL after decades of use.
• $28 million — California (affirmed Nov 2025): Mike Dennis, who used Roundup for decades.
Award amounts are often reduced on appeal, but even reduced amounts remain substantial. Many additional cases have resolved through confidential settlements.
Does Roundup Cause Cancer? The Science
The scientific debate is at the heart of this litigation:• WHO/IARC (2015): The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans."
• U.S. EPA: Maintains that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" when used as directed.
• University of Washington (2019): A meta-analysis found that people with high glyphosate exposure had a 41% higher risk of developing NHL.
• Journal retraction (December 2025): Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted a key safety study after finding Bayer influenced the research without disclosure.
This regulatory conflict — the WHO saying "probably carcinogenic" while the EPA says "not likely" — is exactly why the Supreme Court's preemption decision matters so much. The Court must decide whose science controls.
Is Roundup Still Being Sold?
Yes. Roundup remains on sale in the United States. However, Bayer removed glyphosate from residential lawn and garden versions of Roundup starting in 2023, replacing it with different active ingredients. Agricultural and commercial Roundup products still contain glyphosate.Bayer made this change to reduce future litigation — over 90% of Roundup lawsuits came from residential users — not because of safety concerns, according to the company. Globally, some countries and municipalities have restricted or banned glyphosate, but there is no nationwide U.S. ban.
Roundup Is Not a Class Action — Here's Why That Matters
A common misconception is that Roundup is a class action lawsuit. It is not. Roundup cases are handled as mass tort litigation, where each plaintiff files an individual lawsuit. Cases are consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2741) in the Northern District of California, but each plaintiff's compensation is determined individually based on their specific circumstances.This distinction matters because your payout depends on your case — your cancer type, your exposure history, your losses. There is no fixed settlement amount that everyone receives equally.
Roundup is one of several herbicide mass torts working through the courts on this individual-claim model. A separate weed killer, paraquat, is the subject of its own mass tort over alleged links to Parkinson's disease — see our Paraquat Parkinson's lawsuit coverage for that litigation's eligibility criteria and case status.
How Long Does a Roundup Lawsuit Take?
Timelines vary. Many cases resolve in one to two years through negotiated settlements. Cases that go to trial can take longer, especially if appealed. The MDL structure consolidates discovery and pretrial rulings, which can speed up individual case resolution. The Supreme Court's ruling adds another variable for pending cases built on a failure-to-warn theory, which now face a materially higher risk of dismissal.What Comes Next
With the Supreme Court's ruling in hand, Bayer has said it plans to "significantly contain" the remaining lawsuits, and analysts expect the decision to push more plaintiffs toward the proposed $7.25 billion settlement rather than continued litigation on a now-weakened failure-to-warn theory. That settlement still requires court approval before any payments would go out.In the meantime, cases built on other legal theories continue to move through the courts, and some plaintiffs may pursue appeals. The litigation is not over — but its shape has changed significantly.
Start Your Free Case Review →
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court end Roundup lawsuits?
On June 25, 2026, the Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that federal pesticide law (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has not required a cancer warning on the label. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion; Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Bayer says the ruling should lead to dismissal of failure-to-warn claims in pending cases, though other legal theories may remain available in some cases.Can I still file a Roundup lawsuit in 2026?
The ruling significantly narrows the failure-to-warn theory used in most Roundup cancer lawsuits, though claims based on other theories, such as defective design, may still be possible depending on your state and facts. Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion settlement, still pending court approval, may be the more realistic path to compensation for many claimants going forward. State statutes of limitations also apply — typically 1 to 3 years from diagnosis.How much are Roundup settlements worth?
Average settlements in the original Bayer program ranged from $100,000 to $160,000 per plaintiff. Amounts vary based on a point-scoring system that considers cancer type, severity, exposure duration, and impact on quality of life. Jury verdicts have ranged from $1.25 million to $2.1 billion, though large awards are typically reduced on appeal. Separately, Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement in February 2026, discussed below.What happened to pending Roundup lawsuits after the Supreme Court ruling?
Bayer says the ruling should result in the dismissal of failure-to-warn claims in pending Roundup lawsuits, including the roughly 3,900 cases still active in the federal MDL in California as of June 2026. Other legal theories, such as defective design or negligence, were not addressed by the ruling and may remain open in some cases. Existing, already-paid settlements are not affected.What is Bayer's $7.25 billion Roundup settlement?
In February 2026, Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve both pending Roundup claims and future claims from people who may be diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after Roundup exposure over the next several years. The proposal is still pending court approval and is separate from the Supreme Court's ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell. See our full coverage of the $7.25 billion settlement for eligibility and payout details.What cancers qualify for a Roundup lawsuit?
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) is the primary qualifying diagnosis. Subtypes include Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma, Follicular Lymphoma, Mantle Cell Lymphoma, Burkitt Lymphoma, and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Scientific evidence is strongest for NHL and related lymphomas.What is the Monsanto Papers scandal?
Internal Monsanto documents revealed the company ghostwrote safety studies, built networks of scientists to promote glyphosate as safe, and attempted to influence EPA regulatory reviews. In December 2025, a key safety study was retracted after a journal found Bayer had influenced the research without disclosure.Did the Trump administration support Bayer?
Yes. Solicitor General John Sauer filed a brief supporting Bayer's position that federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims. This reversed the Biden administration's 2022 position, which told the Court not to hear a similar appeal.Sources
• U.S. Supreme Court — Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, Opinion (June 25, 2026)• Bayer — Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Durnell
• NPR — Supreme Court Backs Monsanto in Roundup Liability Fight
• PBS NewsHour — Ruling Blocks Thousands of Roundup Lawsuits
• SCOTUSblog — Monsanto Company v. Durnell Case File
• IARC — Glyphosate Classification
• U.S. EPA — Glyphosate Regulatory Materials
• University of Washington — Glyphosate and NHL Risk Study
• Reuters — $2.1B Georgia Verdict Coverage
Health and Safety Note
This page provides legal information only. For medical guidance, speak with your doctor. If you are currently using herbicides, follow label directions and safety precautions.Disclaimer
OpenClassActions.com is not a law firm and is not a claims administrator. This page is for informational purposes only. For legal advice, speak with an attorney licensed in your state. OpenClassActions is a participant in the Amazon affiliate advertising program and this post may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a commission or fees if you make a purchase via those links.
Social Media Addiction
Status: Open
Pre-Qualify
Roblox - Investigation
Pre-Qualify Here
Submit Claim
$59.5M Flo Period Tracker Settlement
Pro Rata Cash · No Proof Required
Submit Claim
$68M Google Assistant Settlement
Deadline: August 27, 2026
Submit Claim
$10 FitOn Video Privacy Settlement
$10 Cash · No Proof Required
Submit Claim
$8.25M Google Play Kids' Privacy Settlement
Est. $40–$200 Cash · No Proof Required
Submit Claim
Lands' End Data Breach Settlement
~$60 Cash · Up to $5,000 w/ Proof
Submit Claim
$117.5M Comcast Xfinity Settlement
$50.00 · Up to $10,000 w/ Proof
Submit Claim
$2.5M Fidelity Data Breach Settlement
~$100 Cash + $50 for California Residents
Submit Claim
Cosequin Dog Supplements Settlement
Deadline: July 21, 2026
Submit Claim
$31.5M Flagstar Data Breach Settlement
~$60 Cash · Up to $25,000 w/ Proof
Submit Claim
Serviceaide Data Breach Settlement
~$50 Cash No Proof · Up to $5,000 w/ Proof
Submit Claim| Supreme Court Case Watch | |
| Case | Monsanto Co. v. Durnell No. 24-1068 |
|---|---|
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Cert Granted | January 16, 2026 |
| Oral Argument | April 27, 2026 |
| Decision | June 25, 2026 — 7-2 for Monsanto |
| Roundup Litigation Summary | |
| Status | Failure-to-warn claims preempted — other theories may remain |
|---|---|
| Cases in Federal MDL | ~3,900 (June 2026) |
| Total Paid | $11+ billion |
| Proposed Settlement | $7.25 billion (pending court approval) |
| Avg. Settlement | $100K – $160K |
| Deadline | Varies by state |
| Qualifying Diagnoses | NHL and related lymphomas |
| MDL | No. 2741 (N.D. Cal.) |
| Free Review | Start here |