The Trump administration is siding with Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, in a major legal battle that could determine the future of more than one hundred thousand cancer claims tied to the widely used herbicide. On Monday, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to take up Bayer’s appeal of a Missouri jury verdict that ordered the company to pay $1.25 million to plaintiff John Durnell, who developed non Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup. The administration’s support marks a significant intervention that could sharply limit the ability of states and individuals to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable.
The case comes at a time when Roundup litigation has ballooned nationwide. Nearly 4,500 claims are currently pending in federal court, and more than 170,000 have been filed in total. At least 24 cases have gone to trial since October 2023, only a fraction of the overall caseload. According to Bloomberg, Bayer has already been forced to pay more than $10 billion in verdicts and settlements, a cost that has weighed heavily on the company’s stock price.
Durnell’s Missouri victory broke new ground. It was the first successful verdict outside California, the only state where Roundup is officially labeled carcinogenic. The win “opened the floodgates” for similar lawsuits in other states, and plaintiffs soon secured additional payouts in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Bayer immediately challenged the verdict, and the company is now seeking to use the Supreme Court to halt further litigation.
Central to the legal fight is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. Scientific research has raised concerns for more than a decade. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on “limited evidence.” That body of evidence grew in 2019, when a meta analysis by environmental health researchers found that people exposed to glyphosate at the highest levels had a 41 percent higher risk of developing non Hodgkin lymphoma than those who were not.
Yet the US Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly reached the opposite conclusion. The EPA classified glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” in 2016 and again in 2020 after internal assessments. These determinations form the backbone of Bayer’s argument that federal pesticide law shields it from state lawsuits.
The Missouri verdict escalated the company’s legal exposure. To “manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns,” Bayer removed glyphosate based herbicides from the residential market in 2023 and switched to formulas that “rely on alternative active ingredients.” The company warned it might withdraw Roundup from the US market entirely as lawsuits continued to pour in. Bayer has prevailed in some Roundup trials, but it has also faced enormous jury awards, including a $2.1 billion verdict in Georgia before later settling that case and three others on appeal.
Sauer’s Supreme Court filing adopts Bayer’s position that these lawsuits are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA forbids states from imposing pesticide labeling requirements stricter than federal standards. Sauer argues that because the EPA has approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings, plaintiffs cannot claim the company failed to warn consumers. As he states in the brief, “EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans, and the agency has repeatedly approved Roundup labels that did not contain cancer warnings.” He adds that “where, as here, EPA has specified the health warnings that should appear on a particular pesticide’s label, a manufacturer should not be left subject” to different state standards.
The stakes of that argument are substantial. A Supreme Court ruling that Bayer’s labels are federally protected could end thousands of state level failure to warn claims and prevent future cancer plaintiffs from pursuing damages. It would also strengthen corporate reliance on federal approvals to block state litigation in industries beyond pesticides.
But EPA’s own scientific process has been sharply criticized. In 2022, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals voided the EPA’s glyphosate assessment, finding that the agency applied “inconsistent reasoning” in its review. The court noted that EPA had leaned heavily on unpublished, non peer reviewed studies submitted by Monsanto and other manufacturers, while disregarding animal studies highlighted by IARC that showed a strong link between glyphosate and cancer.
Independent advocates have also challenged EPA’s stance. Lori Ann Burd of the Center for Biological Diversity told Common Dreams, “The World Health Organization has recognized glyphosate as a probable carcinogen while the EPA continues to twist itself into pretzels to come to the opposite conclusion.” Her criticism reflects a broader concern among environmental groups that US pesticide regulation has become overly deferential to industry.
The administration’s intervention has drawn attention to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose personal history with Roundup litigation stands in sharp contrast to current policy. Kennedy built much of his public reputation on criticizing pesticide companies and warning about regulatory capture. He served as an attorney for Dewayne Johnson, the first plaintiff to win damages against Monsanto in 2018, where a jury determined that Roundup contributed to his cancer. In a 2020 Facebook post, Kennedy wrote, “If my life were a Superman comic, Monsanto would be my Lex Luthor. I’ve seen this company as the enemy of every admirable American value.” During his 2024 presidential run, he pledged to “ban the worst agricultural chemicals already banned in other countries.”
After joining the Trump administration, Kennedy’s tone shifted. Investigate Midwest reported that his “Make America Healthy Again” commission did not mention glyphosate in its introductory report. He also reassured the pesticide industry that restrictions would not threaten agricultural production, telling lawmakers, “There’s a million farmers who rely on glyphosate. 100% of corn in this country relies on glyphosate. We are not going to do anything to jeopardize that business model.”
The Trump EPA’s broader regulatory approach offers further context. Over the past year, the agency rolled back protections against PFAS chemicals in drinking water, despite extensive evidence of health risks. It also declined to ban chlorpyrifos, an insecticide linked to neurodevelopmental disorders in children. These actions form the backdrop for the administration’s support for Bayer, reflecting a pattern of prioritizing chemical industry interests over precautionary public health protections.
Critics argue that the DOJ intervention reveals a deep alignment with corporate power at the expense of sick Americans. Elizabeth Kucinich, the former director of policy at the Center for Food Safety, called the move a “betrayal of MAHA health promises,” saying, “This is regulatory capture, not public protection. This action shields chemical manufacturers from accountability by elevating a captured federal regulatory process over the lived harm of real people. That is anti life, and it is exactly what millions of MAHA voters believed they were voting against.” Food & Water Watch staff attorney Dani Replogle warned that the DOJ filing “encourages the Supreme Court to slam judiciary doors in the faces of cancer patients across the country.” Replogle added, “No political posturing can undo the clear message this brief sends to sick Americans harmed by toxic pesticides. Trump has Bayer’s back, not theirs.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s stance has encouraged pro business groups. The US Chamber of Commerce argues that allowing plaintiffs to sue companies over EPA approved labels would expose many corporations to liability. Bayer maintains that decades of studies show its product is safe for human use.
The Supreme Court asked the administration in June to provide its views on the case. If the Court agrees to hear the appeal, its eventual ruling could reshape the balance between federal regulatory authority and state law protections, determining whether cancer patients can challenge the safety of one of the most widely used herbicides in the country.
COMMENTS