News & Analysis

Glyphosate Lawsuits, EPA Labeling, and the Supreme Court

By David Meldofsky, California-licensed attorney · Founder, Lawsuit Informer

Published April 28, 2026 · Updated October 6, 2026

If you used Roundup and later developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a June 2026 Supreme Court decision affects the lawsuits over it. On June 25, 2026, the Court ruled 7–2 for Monsanto in Monsanto v. Durnell. It held that federal law blocks state lawsuits saying Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on a Roundup label the EPA approved. Other kinds of Roundup claims are still being fought over.

This page explains what the Court decided and what it left open. For the cases themselves, see Roundup Cancer Lawsuits. For the latest status, see Roundup Lawsuit Updates.

Roundup, glyphosate and the lawsuits

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup weed killer. For years, lawsuits have said exposure to glyphosate products contributed to cancer, especially non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018. It has paid billions in settlements while disputing the science and arguing in case after case that federal law blocks the warning claims.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Court took the case because federal appeals courts disagreed. In Hardeman v. Monsanto, one court let Roundup warning claims go forward. In Schaffner v. Monsanto, another said the EPA's repeated decisions that glyphosate needs no cancer warning blocked those claims.

Mr. Durnell had won a judgment against Monsanto in Missouri. In a 7–2 opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court reversed it. Justices Gorsuch and Jackson dissented. The Court said a federal pesticide law, known as FIFRA, bars states from requiring label warnings beyond what the EPA requires. The EPA approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning, so a state lawsuit demanding that warning is blocked.

The Court relied on an earlier case about medical devices, Riegel v. Medtronic. That case held that once the FDA approves a device, states cannot add their own requirements. The Court said EPA approval of a pesticide label works the same way. It did not overrule Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, a 2005 case that let some state claims against pesticide makers go forward. It said those claims survive only when the state rule matches the federal one, and a required cancer warning did not.

What the decision leaves open

The ruling does not end the Roundup cases. It covers claims that the label should have carried a cancer warning. Other kinds of claims are not clearly covered. These include claims that the product was badly designed or badly made, that the company was careless, or that its advertising was misleading. Claims about risks the EPA never actually considered may also survive. Which claims fall on which side is now the main fight.

The EPA's own review of glyphosate has been questioned in court. In NRDC v. EPA, a federal appeals court threw out the EPA's 2020 glyphosate decision, finding its analysis inadequate.

Where the Roundup cases stand

Case status changes often, so it lives on one page. For Bayer's response to the ruling, the federal cases in MDL No. 2741, the proposed class settlement, and the latest court dates, see Roundup Lawsuit Updates.

Why the ruling matters beyond Roundup

The same reasoning could reach other products whose labels a federal agency approves. That includes medicines, medical devices, food additives, and cosmetics. In those areas, companies may now argue that an agency-approved label shields them from state lawsuits over missing warnings. For medicines, a related fight continues under an earlier Supreme Court case, Wyeth v. Levine.

What this page expected before the ruling

This page first ran in April 2026, before the decision. At the time, it expected a narrow ruling that kept Bates in place and drew a tighter line around when an EPA label blocks a state claim. The Court kept Bates, but it went further on label-based warning claims than that analysis predicted. How far its reasoning reaches beyond the label is the question courts are now deciding.

Bottom line

The June 2026 ruling blocks Roundup lawsuits that rest only on the missing cancer warning on the EPA-approved label. Claims about the product's design, the company's conduct, or its advertising are still being fought over, case by case. Whether a particular claim survives depends on its facts and how it is framed.

Sources and further reading

• NPR: MAHA, EPA, pesticides, and glyphosate
• Reuters: Roundup maker goes to Supreme Court as Americans worry about pesticides
• SCOTUSblog: Federal and state rules for cancer warnings on pesticides
• Bayer: Statement on Durnell Supreme Court filing

Educational commentary only. Not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created.