The Supreme Court said on Friday that it would hear a case that asks whether federal law shields a pesticide manufacturer from lawsuits claiming that the weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.
Developed by Monsanto in the 1970s, Roundup is one of the best-selling weedkillers in the world, but it has been dogged by controversy over its effects on human health. The company, which was acquired by the German conglomerate Bayer in 2018, has faced thousands of lawsuits, amounting to one of the largest waves of such litigation in U.S. history.
Some evidence in lab animals, and more limited evidence in humans, has indicated a link between its active ingredient, glyphosate, and cancer. Last month, a scientific journal retracted a widely cited paper that had reviewed available evidence and declared glyphosate safe. The journal pointed to evidence that appeared to show that Monsanto scientists had guided the research.
The Environmental Protection Agency considers the herbicide to be safe. The federal government faces an Oct. 1 deadline in 2026 to re-examine the effects of glyphosate.
Bill Anderson, chief executive of Bayer, said that regulators around the world had concluded that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely. He called the court’s decision to take the case “good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity.”
“It is time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements,” Mr. Anderson said.
The E.P.A. is responsible for pesticide labeling nationwide, and Bayer argues that following those federal standards effectively protects it from lawsuits.
Bayer’s position has been opposed by a range of critics including environmental groups and Republican-aligned activists under the Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, banner. On Friday, a number of the company’s critics said they were not optimistic about their prospects at the conservative-dominated court.
“It’s a sad day in America when our highest court agrees to consider depriving thousands of Roundup users suffering from cancer of their day in court,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Bayer is seeking the court’s intervention because juries armed with compelling scientific studies linking Roundup to cancer have awarded billions to cancer victims.”
Vani Hari, a MAHA activist and author known to her millions of social media followers as the Food Babe, said the decision “makes the MAHA agenda for 2026 very clear. We will do everything in our power to make sure Americans know the truth about Bayer.”
She called for activists to turn their attention to the E.P.A., which she believes should require a warning label on Roundup.
Monsanto had petitioned the court to review a lawsuit brought by John Durnell of St. Louis, Mo., a gardener who used Roundup for decades. Mr. Durnell eventually received a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and sued the company in 2019, alleging that his illness was a direct result of exposure to the pesticide and that Monsanto had failed to warn of the cancer risks.
A Supreme Court ruling in Bayer’s favor in Mr. Durnell’s case could lead to the dismissal of many of the tens of thousands of active Roundup cases.
Karen Zraick covers legal affairs for the Climate desk and the courtroom clashes playing out over climate and environmental policy.
The post Supreme Court to Decide if the Pesticide Roundup Is Shielded From Lawsuits appeared first on New York Times.
