US: Resolve Court Split       12/02 08:24

   US Solicitor General Backs Bayer's Supreme Court Bid to End Roundup Lawsuits

   The Trump administration said the Supreme Court should hear Bayer's Roundup 
petition that could end cancer lawsuits, arguing federal pesticide labeling 
laws preempt state-liability claims.

Todd Neeley
DTN Environmental Editor

   LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- The U.S. solicitor general said the U.S. Supreme 
Court should grant review to Bayer on a petition filed by the company that 
could bring product-liability lawsuits to an end on the glyphosate-based weed 
killer Roundup, in an amicus brief filed with the court on Monday.

   The Supreme Court held conference on the petition in June 2025 and emerged 
from that meeting asking for the solicitor general's input on the case.

   Both sides in Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell filed briefs with the 
court last summer, as Bayer argued the Supreme Court should hear the case to 
resolve a split among lower courts on whether federal labeling laws preempt 
state labeling laws.

   Durnell, whose attorneys argued his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was caused by his 
use of Roundup, contends in a brief that there is not a lower court split on 
the question.

   The Missouri Court of Appeals joined the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth 
and 11th circuits and state appellate courts in California and Oregon in 
holding that federal law does not preempt state laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Third Circuit ruled the opposite in another case, according to Bayer's 
filing.

   The U.S. on Monday argued that when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
created specific labeling requirements when it determined glyphosate is "not 
likely to be carcinogenic to humans" consistently since 1991, it approved 
Roundup labels without cancer warnings and prohibited Bayer from adding 
warnings without agency approval.

   The solicitor general said the appeals court in Missouri got it wrong when 
it held that state and federal requirements were essentially the same.

   "Under Missouri law, a manufacturer is strictly liable for harms caused by 
an 'unreasonably dangerous' product if the manufacturer 'did not give adequate 
warning of the danger,'" the U.S. said in its brief.

   "In determining whether a particular product is unreasonably dangerous, a 
Missouri jury need not consider the product's economic and social benefits, as 
the 'concept of unreasonable danger ... is presented to the jury as an ultimate 
issue without further definition.'"

   Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, 
however, the U.S. said manufacturers are required to add such warnings as they 
are "necessary and adequate" to protect human health and the environment.

   "And in determining whether a particular pesticide will pose an 
'unreasonable risk to man or the environment,' EPA 'takes into account the 
economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the 
pesticide,'" the solicitor general said.

   "Because the jury below was not instructed to account for such benefits, the 
jury did not apply the same substantive standard that FIFRA instructs EPA to 
apply in determining whether a pesticide is misbranded."

   The U.S. acknowledged that its position on the Durnell case is a reversal of 
the previous administration's stand on the issue.

   In Monsanto Co. v. Hardeman, another Roundup case in 2021, the solicitor 
general argued that FIFRA did not preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims.

   "Since that time, a conflict has developed among the courts of appeals on 
the question whether FIFRA expressly preempts state-law tort claims premised on 
petitioner's failure to warn its customers about potential cancer risks created 
by use of Roundup," the U.S. told the court on Monday.

   "In light of the Third Circuit's intervening decision in Schaffner (v 
Monsanto, 2024) and the change in administration, the United States has 
reexamined the arguments it pressed before this court in Hardeman and has 
returned to its previous position as to the scope of FIFRA preemption."

   Bayer said in a statement it believes the backing of the Trump 
administration will be important in the court's consideration of the case.

   "The support of the U.S. government is an important step and good news for 
U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity," Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said in a 
statement.

   "The stakes could not be higher as the misapplication of federal law 
jeopardizes the availability of innovative tools for farmers and investments in 
the broader U.S. economy."

   Bayer said it was time for the U.S. legal system to "establish that 
companies cannot be punished under state laws" for complying with federal label 
requirements.

   Read more on DTN:

   "SCOTUS to Decide on Bayer Roundup Case," 
https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2025/06/23/supreme-court-
decide-week-hearing.

   Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

   Follow him on social platform X @DTNeeley

    




(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.