The Daily Populous Thursday June 25th, 2026 evening edition
Authored by apnews.com and submitted by boxofstuff

Add AP News as your preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.

Add AP News on Google Add AP News as your preferred source to see more of our stories on Google. Share

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with the maker of Roundup weedkiller Thursday in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.

The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against Bayer, a Germany-based agrochemical manufacturer that acquired Roundup when it bought its original producer Monsanto in 2018.

The decision is a victory for President Donald Trump’s administration, but it provoked outrage from allies in the “ Make America Healthy Again” movement who want to rein in pesticide use.

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that Roundup cannot face failure-to-warn lawsuits in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label. Though focused on Roundup, the ruling could affect similar health claims against other pesticide products.

“This decision is good for American farmers who help feed the world,“ Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said. ”It provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply.”

Though Bayer said the ruling should result in the dismissal of failure-to-warn lawsuits, the company said it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.

The ruling was denounced by environmental groups and lawyers representing people who believe they were harmed by Roundup.

“This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides,” said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed as a claimants’ representative in the settlement. But he said a settlement still would allow some people to receive compensation.

The decision “is a tragic setback for public and environmental health,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a health and environmental group.

A sickened gardener had won $1 million

The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell. He developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood association’s “spray guy,” using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community.

A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. It’s one of thousands of similar cases, including some multibillion-dollar damage awards.

There’s still fierce debate about cancer and Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.

The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argued that it’s required to follow those federal standards. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that separate warning requirements cannot be compelled by state laws and courts. The ruling still could allow other suits alleging problems with the way the product was designed, Durnell’s attorney, Ashley Keller, has said.

Bayer has pledged billions for settlements

Bayer disputes the cancer claims but previously set aside $16 billion to settle cases, and earlier this year proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement. A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed settlement will be heard in a Missouri state court, where many of the lawsuits have been filed.

At the same time, the company has tried to persuade states to pass laws shielding it from liability in failure-to-warn lawsuits, and three states have agreed.

About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, mostly from home users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market.

The company had said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if it keeps getting sued. Agricultural industry groups have said Roundup is important for a strong food supply.

“Today’s decision protects our access to the tools that let us care for our soil, protect our crops, and keep food affordable for your family and mine,” said Blake Hurst, a corn and soybean farmer who is a former president of the Missouri Farm Bureau.

The court ruling runs counter to the MAHA movement

Pesticides have created a rift between the administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, who were frustrated by an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate’s production.

Kennedy has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.

Some health advocates contend the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of glyphosate-based weedkillers was based on limited information and that lawsuits in state courts have turned up additional evidence against it.

“The fact that EPA approved a pesticide label does not mean a product is safe, and it should not become a shield for companies that fail to warn about cancer risks, neurological harm, and other serious dangers,” said Patti Goldman, senior attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental legal organization.

Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri.

VenserSojo on June 25th, 2026 at 15:19 UTC »

> The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company can’t be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label

Jackson and Gorsuch were the dissent, and the case isn't about the fact it causes cancer but rather the idea they did not warn people it could cause cancer though it appears they had no obligation to do so per federal classification as "unlikely" to cause cancer

DeetahTheGame on June 25th, 2026 at 14:45 UTC »

Every headline nowadays looks like "Supreme Court rules humans do not deserve rights, in 6-3 ruling"

photostrat on June 25th, 2026 at 14:44 UTC »

Sounds like we're about to find out Roundup has more rights to exist than humans do. 7-2