Julia Baker
Jun 25, 2026
Key Points
- US Supreme Court throws out Roundup lawsuit against Bayer
- Federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims, court rules
- North Dakota and Georgia passed similar legislation last spring, protecting pesticide manufacturers
A nationwide push to get state legislatures to shield pesticide maker Bayer from lawsuits may no longer be necessary following a U.S. Supreme Court decision to throw out a Roundup lawsuit.
The court in a 7-2 decision found that federal law preempts failure-to-warn claims under state laws that caused Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer, to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved the product without one.
The case stems from a Missouri lawsuit brought by a man who alleged he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup for about 20 years. A jury in state court awarded him more than $1 million after finding Monsanto failed to warn users that the herbicide could cause cancer, and a Missouri appeals court upheld that decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed it, finding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIRPA, bars states from imposing labeling requirements that differ from those approved by the EPA. The justices said the lawsuit would have effectively required Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label, making the claim preempted by federal law.
“FIFRA demands ‘Uniformity’ and expressly preempts state labeling requirements that are ‘in addition to’ or ‘different from’ federal labeling requirements,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion.
The high court said the EPA has repeatedly concluded glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is not likely to cause cancer and has never required a cancer warning on the product’s label. Federal law requires manufacturers to continue using the EPA-approved label unless the agency approves a change.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from the majority opinion. Jackson argued that the majority misread the federal pesticide law and said state failure-to-warn claims simply enforce the same requirement under federal law that pesticide labels include warnings necessary to protect public health.
“The effect of the majority’s interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell,” Jackson wrote.
The ruling comes after Bayer backed legislation in Tennessee and several other states that would protect pesticide manufacturers from failure-to-warn lawsuits when their product labels comply with federal law. Currently, there are about 200,000 lawsuits across the country filed against the manufacturer.
The Tenenssee bill was abruptly yanked from the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year despite sponsors' expressed optimism that it would pass. The bill was introduced by Republican Rep. Rusty Grills, a Newbern farmer, and Sen. John Stevens, R-Huntingdon.
The Make America Healthy Again movement, which was created by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, took credit for the legislation being pulled. During a visit to the Tennessee Capitol in February, Kennedy denied any involvement in the move.
But in a U.S. Senate hearing later this spring, U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, D Mass., grilled Kennedy over what he called "hypocrisy." There, Kennedy admitted for the first time that he opposed President Donald Trump’s support for Bayer in the Supreme Court case.
“Despite his longstanding belief that the pesticide ingredient glyphosate causes cancer, he has proved unable to stop the Trump administration from bending to the corporation that manufactures it,” Markey said in a release.
Other states that have unsuccessfully introduced similar legislation include Florida, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina and Oklahoma.
Kansas Republican state Rep. Ken Rahjes, now a candidate for lieutenant governor, was a big proponent of the bill. The Kansas House had passed the bill, but the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee tabled it following concerns raised by Attorney General Kris Kobach’s office, which cited the pending U.S. Supreme Court case.
Last spring, the Georgia Legislature passed a measure that considers a pesticide label approved by the EPA under FIFRA to be consistent with the most recent health human risk assessment, protecting manufacturers from failure-to-warn liability. It provides exceptions if the EPA determines the manufacturer knowingly withheld, misrepresented, concealed or destroyed information regarding health risks.
North Dakota passed similar legislation last spring, making it the nation’s first such measure signed into law. This spring, Kentucky passed legislation protecting manufacturers, and Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto was overridden.
Supporters have argued they shield manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits and prevent states from imposing warning requirements that conflict with EPA decisions. Opponents say the legislation would limit the ability of people diagnosed with cancer and other illnesses to seek compensation through the courts while shielding manufacturers from liability.
Brent Wisner, an attorney who successfully tried the first cases against Monsanto in 2018, expressed disappointment in the ruling, saying the fate of previous winning cases “remains to be seen.”
“This decision is a severe blow to holding corporations accountable,” he said. “This is not the outcome we wanted from the Supreme Court, but it means there is more work to be done.”
