The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a closely watched appeal from Bayer that could sharply curb thousands of lawsuits accusing the company’s Roundup weedkiller of causing cancer. The decision puts the nation’s highest court at the center of a legal fight with major financial implications, as Bayer seeks to reduce its exposure to damages that could run into the billions of dollars.
The justices will review a ruling from Missouri that upheld a $1.25 million jury verdict awarded to John Durnell, a man who said he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of using Roundup. Bayer argues that federal pesticide law should block state-law claims alleging inadequate cancer warnings, especially when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly said the product does not pose a cancer risk and has approved its labeling.
Investors welcomed the news. Bayer shares rose nearly 5% after the court said it would hear the case, though the justices have not yet set a date for oral arguments. In a statement, Bayer chief executive Bill Anderson called the court’s move an important step in the company’s broader effort to contain the litigation. He said companies should not face punishment under state law when they comply with federal labeling requirements.
Federal law versus state claims at the heart of the dispute
At issue is whether federal regulations governing pesticides preempt state-level lawsuits that claim Roundup users were not adequately warned about cancer risks. Bayer says federal law leaves it no room to add warnings beyond those approved by the EPA. Lower courts have split on that question, increasing the chances that the Supreme Court will now settle the matter.
The stakes are high. Bayer faces about 65,000 similar lawsuits in U.S. state and federal courts. Many plaintiffs say they developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or other cancers after using Roundup at work or at home. Bayer has already paid roughly $10 billion to resolve most cases that were pending as of 2020, yet it failed to secure a global settlement covering future claims. New lawsuits have continued to emerge.
The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to take up the case. In a brief filed at the court, the U.S. solicitor general supported Bayer’s argument, saying federal law should shield the company from state-law warning claims when regulators have found no cancer risk.
Lawyers for Durnell opposed the appeal. They argued that consumers relied not only on the product label but also on Bayer’s broader marketing, which they say failed to disclose potential dangers.
Bayer maintains that decades of studies show glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is safe for human use. The EPA has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic.
Bayer acquired Roundup through its $63 billion purchase of Monsanto in 2018, a deal that later saddled the company with extensive legal liabilities. Although Bayer has won several recent trials, it has also suffered large jury losses, including a $2.1 billion verdict in Georgia in 2025. The company has warned that it could pull Roundup from the U.S. market if the litigation continues, and it has already replaced glyphosate in consumer versions of the product sold domestically.
For Bayer, the Supreme Court review represents a critical chance to reset the legal landscape. A ruling in its favor could shut down most of the remaining cases. A loss, by contrast, would keep the courtroom battles alive and prolong one of the most costly legal sagas in modern corporate history.