Monsanto Wins Landmark Roundup™ Case at U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7:2 landmark ruling in the Durnell Roundup™ case on Thursday, affirming that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts state-law-based failure-to-warn claims when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a definitive determination on product safety. This decision, which reflects strong support across the ideological spectrum of the Court, helps to bring significant containment to the Roundup™ litigation. Glyphosate remains the most studied crop protection tool in the world and this decision affirms that the EPA's safety determination is the law of the land, ensuring that companies cannot be punished under a patchwork of state tort laws for complying with federal labeling requirements.

"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," said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. "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. It's time to put it behind us. Strengthened by this ruling, we continue to pursue our multi-pronged containment strategy, which includes the previously announced class settlement."

The majority opinion states: "Durnell's state law failure-to-warn claim would require a cancer warning on Roundup's label - a requirement 'in addition to' and 'different from' the label required by EPA under FIFRA. FIFRA therefore expressly preempts Durnell's claim."

Impact of the Ruling

The holding in Durnell should result in the dismissal of current warnings-based claims and foreclose future claims based on state-failure-to-warn theories, which make up the vast majority of claims in the litigation to date.

In February 2026, along with class counsel, Monsanto announced a proposed U.S. nationwide class settlement designed to resolve current and future Roundup™ claims alleging non-Hodgkin lymphoma injuries through a long-term compensation program. Monsanto previously explained that the class settlement and Supreme Court strategies were independently necessary and mutually reinforcing elements of the company's multi-pronged containment strategy. Together with today's positive ruling, the class - which has received preliminary approval - will help ensure that Monsanto can significantly contain this litigation.

Good for farmers, food security, and American consumers

For years, American farmers have operated under a cloud of legal uncertainty created not by science, but by the litigation industry. Glyphosate-based herbicides are a foundation of modern, sustainable agriculture. Their safe and effective use supports food security, keeps production costs affordable, makes no-till, sustainable farm practices possible, and allows farmers to do more with less. This ruling restores the regulatory clarity that the agricultural sector, the broader food supply chain, and American consumers deserve after nearly a decade of well-funded attacks by the plaintiffs' bar. It also provides an opportunity to restore public trust in the scientific consensus on the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides. The studies reviewed by regulatory authorities on glyphosate's safety in connection with recent registration reviews are publicly available at www.bayer.com/en/glyphosate-studies.

Court clarifies law that supports science

The EPA has repeatedly and unequivocally determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic. Every leading independent regulatory body worldwide that has conducted its own review of glyphosate safety - from the European Food Safety Authority to regulators across Asia and Latin America - has reached the same conclusion. This is not the judgment of any single agency or administration; it is the settled consensus of the world's foremost scientific experts.

What has challenged this consensus is not new evidence - instead, it is largely a single, decade-old report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) used in courtrooms by plaintiffs' attorneys, despite the fact that every leading regulator in the world that has examined IARC's report disagrees with its conclusions. Allowing this outlier report to override the expert determinations of federal regulatory agencies and scientists, despite the express uniformity requirements of federal law, has led to a patchwork of jury-by-jury requirements and uncertainties for manufacturers, farmers, and consumers alike. This decision restores the integrity of the scientific regulatory process and the independence of the experts within it.

The long road to this moment

This litigation has spanned years, consumed enormous resources, and distracted from what the company does best - promoting Health for all, Hunger for none. Many billions have been directed toward the Roundup™ litigation - money that could have funded the next generation of sustainable crop protection tools, breakthrough therapies, or other advances that farmers, consumers, and patients urgently need. These litigation costs diminish investments in innovation and are borne not just by the company, but by every patient waiting for a new therapy, every farmer waiting for a better tool, and every shareholder whose capital was diverted. Today marks the beginning of a new chapter in Health for all, Hunger for none.