“Strengthened by this ruling, we continue to pursue our multi-pronged containment strategy, which includes the previously announced class settlement,” the Bayer CEO said.
Great. Greedy, corrupt corporations rule …. if they really cared they’d cease and desist. Knowing they may be literally exterminating people with their poisons! EWNZ
Ag-tech and pharmaceutical giant Bayer and the Trump administration are taking a victory lap after the Supreme Court ruled that Bayer’s Monsanto cannot be held liable under state laws for failing to warn consumers about the alleged cancer risks of its weedkiller Roundup, caused by the main active ingredient glyphosate, on its label. After plenty of lobbying from Bayer and the Trump administration, this important ruling effectively renders all lawsuits against Bayer/Monsanto and other herbicide and chemical producers moot.
The justices ruled 7-2 in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell; with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivering the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas, while Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
As explained by Ag Daily, Plaintiff John Durnell was awarded $1.25 million for his 2019 lawsuit claiming that he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of using Roundup. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in April, and the verdict was expected to significantly impact the thousands upon thousands of cases that Bayer is still facing after its acquisition of Monsanto.
The Supreme Court stated in its ruling that “Durnell’s counterarguments are unpersuasive.”
“Durnell’s state law failure-to-warn claim would require a cancer warning on Roundup’s label — a requirement ‘in addition to’ and ‘different from’ the label required by EPA under FIFRA. FIFRA therefore expressly preempts Durnell’s claim.”
Andy Curliss, chairman of the nonpartisan Carver Center for Agriculture & Nutrition, had previously noted the sweeping ramifications the ruling would have.
“The implications are extensive, including for U.S. agriculture production, supply chains, and how federal and state authority interact. The outcome will shape whether labeling decisions function as a uniform national standard or are revisited through litigation over time. That question reaches beyond this case to how scientific findings become enforceable rules across a national market.”
With this latest ruling, Bayer has declared victory.
Modern Ag Alliance — a lobbyist front group founded by Bayer, according to their website, which “represents more than 100 agricultural organizations advocating for U.S. farmers’ access to the crop protection tools” —Executive Director Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, a lobbying group for Bayer, said in a statement:
“Today’s opinion provides important clarity for farmers and the entire agricultural industry, who rely on a predictable, science-based regulatory system to deliver the tools needed to feed, fuel, and clothe the country. Farmers are already carrying enough uncertainty, from tight margins to rising costs, and they should not have to question whether the tools they rely on will remain available.”
In an immediate reaction, Bayer said in a statement:
“The U.S. Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup™ litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims.
“Monsanto will continue to pursue final approval of the class settlement and other elements of its multi-pronged strategy to contain the Roundup™ litigation.”
Bayer later issued a more detailed statement:
“This decision, which reflects strong support across the ideological spectrum of the Court, helps to bring significant containment to the Roundup™ litigation. Glyphosate remains the most studied crop protection tool in the world and this decision affirms that the EPA’s safety determination is the law of the land, ensuring that companies cannot be punished under a patchwork of state tort laws for complying with federal labeling requirements.
“The holding in Durnell should result in the dismissal of current warnings-based claims and foreclose future claims based on state-failure-to-warn theories, which make up the vast majority of claims in the litigation to date.
“Together with today’s positive ruling, the class – which has received preliminary approval – will help ensure that Monsanto can significantly contain this litigation.
“For years, American farmers have operated under a cloud of legal uncertainty created not by science, but by the litigation industry. Glyphosate-based herbicides are a foundation of modern, sustainable agriculture. Their safe and effective use supports food security, keeps production costs affordable, makes no-till, sustainable farm practices possible, and allows farmers to do more with less.
“This ruling restores the regulatory clarity that the agricultural sector, the broader food supply chain, and American consumers deserve after nearly a decade of well-funded attacks by the plaintiffs’ bar. It also provides an opportunity to restore public trust in the scientific consensus on the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides. The studies reviewed by regulatory authorities on glyphosate’s safety in connection with recent registration reviews are publicly available at http://www.bayer.com/en/glyphosate-studies.
“This litigation has spanned years, consumed enormous resources, and distracted from what the company does best — promoting Health for all, Hunger for none. Many billions have been directed toward the Roundup™ litigation — money that could have funded the next generation of sustainable crop protection tools, breakthrough therapies, or other advances that farmers, consumers, and patients urgently need. These litigation costs diminish investments in innovation and are borne not just by the company, but by every patient waiting for a new therapy, every farmer waiting for a better tool, and every shareholder whose capital was diverted.
“Today marks the beginning of a new chapter in Health for all, Hunger for none.”
“This decision is good for American farmers who help feed the world. It provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson.
“This litigation has enormous costs for the company and has impacted public trust. The decision brings overdue justice on an issue that should have been clarified much earlier. It’s time to put it behind us. Strengthened by this ruling, we continue to pursue our multi-pronged containment strategy, which includes the previously announced class settlement.”
As previously detailed by The WinePress across a number of reports, Bayer began aggressively targeting state and federal governments to provide the community immunity, with North Dakota becoming the first state in 2025 to prohibit lawsuits against pesticide producers, with other states considering or enacting similar measures, though some attempts did fail.
Nevertheless, the North Dakota ruling foreshadowed what was to come. Burns-Thompson said at the time: “This law sets the standard for states across America to pass legislation similar to HB 1318 and, ultimately, stand up for our farmers.”
Coming in 2026, The WP also noted that Bayer was determined to end litigation levied against them. CEO Bill Anderson vowed during an earnings call last year that the company had a “multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain litigation by the end of 2026,” and added, “we’re turning over every stone to make sure that we’re executing on all of the various approaches that we’ve called out in the past, and we remain committed to substantially containing this litigation threat to the company by the end of next year.”
Bayer certainly had plenty of help within D.C. and the Trump administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was already approving a raft of new herbicides and pesticides in 2025 and heading into 2026, and relaxing regulations on others.
Heading into 2026, the federal battleground was set to prove to be a pivotal year, especially over two pesticide ingredients: glyphosate and dicamba; Investigate Midwest referring to this as “Pesticidepalooza.”
Dicamba, which gets less attention compared to glyphosate but still has its own documented health issues, was later approved for use in 34 states; and the EPA’s justification was that they changed the label requirements, thereby making the chemical ‘safe’ to use, as per meeting label safety requirements. On the same day EPA made that announcement, Bayer also announced it is seeking approval for one of its new chemical blends called Stryax, a formula used to treat glyphosate-resistant crops — a “solution” to counteract the effects of their Roundup.
Last month, the Trump U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has finalized a review of atrazine that concludes the potent, cancer-linked endocrine disruptor does not pose an extinction risk to any threatened or endangered animals or plants.
Trump Admin Authorizes Continued Use Of Cancer-Causing And Endocrine-Disrupting Pesticide Atrazine, A Chemical Banned In 60 Countries
Moreover, the USDA in March deregulated genetically-modified (GMO) corn for insect resistance created by Bayer.
Later that February week, President Trump signed an executive order to increase glyphosate production via the Defense Production Act; which was seen as a massive betrayal by the administration and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. RFK Jr. was forced to go into damage control and defend Trump’s actions.
RFK Jr. and other administration officials, such as USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, previously endorsed the MAHA Report in 2025, which repeatedly pointed out glyphosate and many other pesticides as a detrimental cause to early child development and health issues. But later that year RFK Jr. and Rollins and the administration notably rescinded prior recommendations that called for stricter regulation of ultra-processed foods and pesticides, two of the leading drivers for the MAHA movement.
MAHA Is Dead: Trump Invokes Defense Production Act To Bolster Glyphosate Production, As Congress Works To Provide Total Immunity To Bayer In Farm Bill
In April, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to rule in Bayer’s favor in the Monsanto Co. v. Durnell case. in an amicus brief, which was co-signed by several lobbyists and law firms that previously have represented Bayer.
Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court To Shield Bayer From Glyphosate Lawsuits. Kentucky Becomes Latest State To Prohibit Lawsuits Against Pesticide Producers
Disillusioned MAHA supporters have shared their frustrations online with the latest ruling.
Kelly Ryerson, who operates under the name “The Glyphosate Girl,” said:
“Today’s SCOTUS ruling is historic. Never in history has an administration so blatantly and willingly sold out our fertility, vitality, and health to corporate interests. It is unforgivable. We will make sure all voters know exactly how this domestic chemical attack happened.”
The WinePress News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Discover more from Environmental Health Watch NZ
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
