Key Takeaways
- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that FIFRA expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has made a definitive safety determination, effectively shielding Bayer's Roundup™ from the majority of existing and future litigation.
- The ruling is expected to result in the dismissal of current warning-based Roundup™ claims and bar future failure-to-warn theories, which make up the vast majority of cases in the litigation to date.
- Bayer CEO Bill Anderson welcomed the decision as providing regulatory clarity for agricultural innovation, while Monsanto said it will continue pursuing final approval of its previously announced nationwide class settlement.
- Farm Action criticised the ruling as weakening protections for farmers, farmworkers, and the public, arguing that farmers have viable alternatives to glyphosate-based products and should not be used to justify corporate immunity.
- The EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic; regulators in Europe, Asia, and Latin America have reached the same conclusion, in contrast to a 2015 IARC classification that has underpinned most plaintiff litigation.
Supreme Court Rules 7-2 in Favour of Monsanto in Roundup™ Preemption Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a 7-2 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims where the EPA has made a definitive determination on crop protection product safety. The majority opinion states that requiring a cancer warning on Roundup™'s label would impose a requirement “in addition to” and “different from” the label required by the EPA under FIFRA, and that FIFRA therefore expressly preempts the claim.
The decision is expected to result in the dismissal of existing warning-based Roundup™ claims and foreclose future claims built on state failure-to-warn theories, which have formed the basis of the vast majority of cases in nearly a decade of litigation against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer.
Bayer and Monsanto Welcome the Decision
Bayer framed the ruling as a win for American farmers and for regulatory clarity in agricultural innovation.
“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. 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,” said Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer.
Monsanto issued a shorter statement confirming it is still reviewing the ruling and will provide a more comprehensive response shortly. The company said it will continue pursuing final approval of its proposed U.S. nationwide class settlement, announced in February 2026, which is designed to resolve current and future Roundup™ claims alleging non-Hodgkin lymphoma injuries through a long-term compensation programme. The class settlement has received preliminary approval.
Farm Action Criticises the Ruling
Farm Action, a farmer advocacy organisation, pushed back against the decision, arguing it weakens accountability for pesticide manufacturers.
“This ruling weakens protections for farmers, farmworkers, and the public, and it sets a dangerous precedent for other corporations seeking similar immunity. Bayer argued that it needed legal immunity to protect farmers' access to crop protection tools. As Farm Action has repeatedly pointed out, farmers have other options beyond Bayer. Farmers should not be used as an excuse for a multinational corporation to avoid accountability when its products cause harm,” said Angela Huffman, President of Farm Action.
Farm Action had previously filed an amicus brief alongside a coalition of farm organisations arguing that farmers are not dependent on Roundup™ and that the U.S. food system is not at risk without it. Huffman also spoke at a rally outside the Supreme Court in April calling for accountability from pesticide manufacturers.
The Science and Litigation Background
The EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic. Regulatory bodies across Europe, Asia, and Latin America have reached the same conclusion following their own independent reviews. The litigation has drawn heavily on a 2015 classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which concluded glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic” — a finding that every major regulator that has since reviewed IARC's report has disagreed with.
Bayer said the ruling restores the integrity of the regulatory process and the independence of scientific experts, and that billions directed toward the litigation could otherwise have funded the next generation of sustainable crop protection tools and medical research.
