Why A Key Issue for Roundup Lawsuits May Soon Head to the Supreme Court
Editors carefully fact-check all Consumer Notice, LLC content for accuracy and quality.
Consumer Notice, LLC has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.
We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.
Roundup lawsuits continue to go to trial in Pennsylvania court, with recent wins for both sides. Monsanto won the latest trial, which ended last week. In that case, a woman had blamed her non-Hodgkin lymphoma on the weed killer after using it for several years before her diagnosis.
That trial marked the 15th win in the last 22 trials for Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, but it has been far from a perfect run for the company.
Just last month, a trial in the same court ended in a $78 million verdict for a plaintiff who had used Roundup for over 30 years. The jury awarded another man a $2.25 billion verdict – later reduced to $400 million – in January as well.
As mixed verdicts continue, Bayer is now gearing up to attempt to end thousands of lawsuits against the weed killer through the Supreme Court.
After last week’s trial, Bayer said it plans to file a petition during or before 2025 for the Supreme Court to decide a Roundup case. This would allow the court to hear the case during the 2025-26 session.
The key issue to be decided is whether a federal statute preempts the state-based claims that have been central to Roundup lawsuits.
Federal Preemption Would be at Center of Supreme Court Roundup Case
One of the most divisive issues in Roundup litigation has been whether federal preemption applies to the cases.
Bayer has argued that a statute called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) should take precedence over state failure-to-warn claims that Roundup lawsuits rely on. The company argues that since FIFRA is a federal law, it should overrule any state law.
According to the Harvard Law Review, FIFRA requires pesticide labels to be approved by the EPA and includes language stating that states cannot add requirements different from or beyond those imposed by FIFRA.
Bayer’s argument has hinged on the fact that the EPA-approved label for Roundup does not include a cancer warning. The company claims that this means a state can’t blame it for not having a warning.
The issue of federal preemption has seen divided results among courts. The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits both ruled against Bayer and determined that FIFRA does not preempt state failure-to-warn claims.
But, in August, the company earned a big win when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with those past decisions and found that FIFRA does preempt those state claims. The division among courts has set the stage for a potential showdown in front of the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court were to side with Bayer on the issue of federal preemption, it could shake up and end much of the ongoing Roundup litigation.
There are still thousands of pending Roundup lawsuits.
Editor Lindsay Donaldson contributed to this article.