The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal law protects Monsanto from tens of thousands of lawsuits from people claiming the weed killer Roundup caused their cancer.
The 7-2 decision effectively ends a legal pathway for people who say they were harmed by products that the federal government declined to adequately regulate.
The decision is a loss for the Make America Healthy Again Movement, which sees glyphosate — the widely used herbicide in Roundup — as the poster child for dangerous chemicals in the food system and has long fought to end the chemical’s widespread use and hold its makers accountable.
It is, however, a win for the agriculture industry. Industry experts were concerned that glyphosate producers would suffer financially without legal-liability protection.
Trending
The fight over Roundup has exposed a growing rift between MAHA leaders and the Trump administration, which argued on behalf of chemical manufacturers in this court case and even invoked the Defense Production Act to try to increase production of glyphosate.
“I am devastated,” said Kelly Ryerson, a MAHA activist who goes by the online moniker “glyphosate girl,” adding that the decision will “fuel the infertility, cancer and chronic disease epidemic.”
Alexandra Munoz, an independent toxicologist and MAHA activist, said the ruling is “top of mind for MAHA.”
“Everyone is absolutely livid this has happened,” she said. “This probably cost Republicans the midterms.”
The justices ruled that the federal government’s decision that Roundup doesn’t need a cancer warning label preempts — essentially overrides — state-level laws that require warnings for possibly dangerous chemicals.
“EPA critically evaluates the pesticide’s label to ensure that the label contains all warnings necessary to protect human health,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion for the majority.
The Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t require pesticide manufacturers to warn consumers of cancer risk from Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, on the label.
“As a matter of federal law, Monsanto legally must use a label without a cancer warning unless and until EPA approves or requires a change,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has spent billions of dollars settling state-level cases from tens of thousands of people who’ve claimed they developed cancer from exposure to the chemical.
The Trump administration continues to lean heavily on the power of federal preemption, using the concept to attack more liberal states for regulations it sees as contrary to White House priorities. The glyphosate case is just one example: Across issues of pollution, “sanctuary cities,” artificial intelligence, and even prediction markets, the administration has pursued preemption arguments to prevent states from regulating more aggressively than the federal government.
The lawsuit was brought by Missouri resident John Durnell, who had regularly sprayed Roundup around his neighborhood for two decades. After developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Durnell sued Bayer in 2019 saying the company failed to warn him of the risks.
Don’t miss the stories shaping Washington.
Sign in
Log into your free account with your email. Don’t have one?
Check your email for a one-time code.
We sent a 4-digit code to . Enter the pin to confirm your account.
New code will be available in 1:00
Let’s try this again.
We encountered an error with the passcode sent to . Please reenter your email.
You’re on the list! Thank you for reading NOTUS.
Authors
