Roundup Lawsuit Updates
Last updated:
On June 25, 2026 the Supreme Court decided Monsanto Co. v. Durnell and held, 7–2, that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims built on an EPA-approved pesticide label. That removed the theory most Roundup cases had been pleaded on. It did not end the litigation, and what happens next turns on how narrowly courts read the decision.
If you used Roundup regularly and were later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, you can ask for a free case review. The Supreme Court narrowed one theory in June and the rest of the litigation continues. Whether your own exposure and diagnosis still support a case turns on your facts, and your state’s deadline runs either way. Pick how you used it:
Free and no obligation. Deadlines are set by your state and can run from the date of diagnosis. Submitting a review request does not create an attorney-client relationship.
This page is general legal education, not legal advice, and it reports on litigation that is moving quickly. Nothing here evaluates any individual reader’s claim or creates an attorney-client relationship.
Where the Roundup Litigation Stands Now
The federal litigation, In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2741, sits before Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California. The federal court count stood at 3,925 pending actions in the September 2026 report, far smaller than it once was, because Bayer has settled in waves since 2020 and has said it has paid out well over $10 billion. Tens of thousands more claims sit in state courts, which is where most of the large verdicts have come from.
Two things are moving at once. In St. Louis County, the first Roundup trial since Durnell is under way, and it rests on the claim that the weed killer itself was unsafely designed. In federal court, the open question is whether the MDL survives Durnell in its current form.
Roundup claims have not stopped being filed. The Supreme Court narrowed one theory rather than closing the door, and deadlines still run on state law tied to diagnosis.
Check Whether You May QualifyWhat Durnell Did, and What It Left Alone
Federal law decides what a pesticide label has to say. The Court held that a state jury cannot put a cancer warning on that label when EPA never called for one, because doing so would add a requirement on top of the federal one. That was the theory most Roundup cases were built on, and it is the theory the ruling closed.
The vote was 7 to 2. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan and Barrett. Justice Thomas wrote separately. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch. The lineup crossed the usual divisions, which is part of why the ruling landed as hard as it did.
The holding reaches the label and stops there. Several other theories rest on different ground:
- Design defect, meaning the weed killer itself was unreasonably dangerous to use.
- Manufacturing defect, meaning something went wrong in how a batch was made.
- Negligence in how the product was developed, tested, or sold.
- Misrepresentation, including what the advertising and marketing told people.
- Risks EPA never actually examined when it approved the product.
The fight now is whether those theories stand on their own, or whether courts treat them as warning claims wearing different clothes. That argument is running in every Roundup case in the country. Fuller analysis sits on Monsanto v. Durnell: What the Supreme Court Held.
Recent Roundup Developments
Jury selection began the week of September 21 in Aretino v. Monsanto Co. (No. 20SL-CC03676), brought by Theresa Aretino and other plaintiffs who say Roundup caused their cancer. Judge Brian May is presiding in St. Louis County Circuit Court, and opening statements are scheduled for September 29.
Durnell blocks claims built on the product label, so the plaintiffs are trying the case on design defect: the argument that the weed killer itself was unreasonably dangerous to use. This is the first test of whether a Roundup case can win a jury on that theory alone. A verdict binds only these plaintiffs. Lawyers on both sides will still read it as the first sign of how juries treat a design-only Roundup case.
Monsanto went before Judge Timothy Boyer in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in St. Louis and asked him to give final approval to the $7.25 billion class settlement. The company argued that the deal is the only realistic way to bring the Roundup claims to an end. Lawyers opposing it argued that the people covered by the class are being pushed toward terms they had little say in. The judge heard the arguments and did not rule from the bench. As of September 22, 2026 he had not issued a decision. The court can approve the settlement, change it, or refuse it.
Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, decided 7–2 after argument in April 2026. The $1.25 million St. Louis judgment for Mr. Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of Roundup use, was reversed on FIFRA preemption grounds and sent back.
Bayer asked Judge Chhabria to dismiss the remaining federal cases, arguing that Durnell eliminates the theory the MDL was built on and that the surviving claims are repackaged warning claims. Plaintiffs’ counsel oppose, arguing the decision is confined to labeling. The court has since entered an order setting out how it intends to work through the question. It has not ruled on the motion, and that ruling is the single biggest open item in the federal cases.
In a Massachusetts case, Judge Margaret Guzman described Durnell as relatively narrow and focused on the product label, and indicated it may leave room for state-law claims resting on warnings a manufacturer could have given outside the label. The plaintiff was given until late August 2026 to amend. Early signals like this one are what will decide how much of the litigation survives.
The proposed settlement is King v. Monsanto, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in St. Louis. Monsanto would pay up to $7.25 billion, in tiers, over roughly 21 years. It covers people in the United States exposed to Roundup and similar weed killers before February 17, 2026, which is a much wider group than the people with cases on file. Preliminary approval came on March 4, 2026. The fairness hearing moved from July 9 to August 19 and then, in an August 6 order, to September 14, 2026, when it was held. It nearly moved courts along the way: on August 27 a federal appeals court turned away an attempt by objecting lawyers to have the settlement decided in federal court instead of the Missouri state court. Registration and claim filing stay closed until the court grants final approval. The official notice site is WeedKillerClass.com.
Part of why the hearing kept moving is that the settlement administrator has been working through claimants who opted out of the settlement and then wanted to reverse that, which is widely read as a response to Durnell. The extra time also let the parties argue over which opt-outs were valid in the first place. The opt-out deadline was extended to August 21, 2026 and has now passed. Anyone who opted out and has since changed their mind is in the hands of their own lawyer and the court on that question.
The IARC classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans in 2015. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 and inherited the docket. The largest verdict, in the Pilliod case, was $2 billion before being cut to $87 million on appeal. Bayer has settled in waves while continuing to dispute the causation science and pressing the preemption defence that finally succeeded in Durnell.
The Proposed Class Settlement
The proposed settlement and the Supreme Court ruling pull against each other. The deal was negotiated when failure-to-warn claims still worked. It is now being weighed in a world where those claims are mostly blocked, which changes what joining it is worth on both sides. Anyone with a pending federal case should be discussing that specific question with their own counsel rather than reading general commentary about it.
Which Roundup Claims Are Still Live
Durnell closed one route, failure to warn. The litigation continues on the others, and every filing deadline stands exactly where it did before the ruling. Whether a particular exposure and diagnosis still supports a case turns on your own facts, and your state's clock keeps running either way.
What to watch from here
- How the federal judge rules on Bayer's push to throw out the remaining cases.
- Whether other courts read Durnell as narrowly as this one did.
- How state courts apply it to cases already filed there.
- Whether the design and negligence arguments survive on their own, without the labeling claim.
- Whether Judge Boyer grants final approval after the September 14, 2026 hearing, and how long that ruling takes.
- How the St. Louis County jury decides Aretino, the first Roundup trial built on design defect alone.
- Any EPA action on glyphosate, which would change the legal picture.
- Whether Congress legislates on pesticide labeling.
One theory narrowed. The rest are still in play. Whether a particular exposure and diagnosis still supports a case after Durnell turns on the facts, and your state’s filing deadline runs on its own clock.
Start a Free Case ReviewHow This Updates Page Fits With the Main Roundup Page
The main Roundup Cancer Lawsuits page covers who the litigation involves, what is alleged, and how claims are evaluated. This page tracks docket movement and the fallout from Durnell, which is changing month to month. The science sits on Is Roundup Dangerous?, Roundup and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and What Is Glyphosate?
Case counts, rulings, and settlement terms reported here reflect public reporting available on the date above and should be confirmed against the docket before being relied on.
Sources
- Supreme Court of the United States, Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24–1068 (June 25, 2026) — the opinion itself, including the concurrence and the dissent, and the holding on FIFRA preemption described above.
- Official King v. Monsanto settlement site, WeedKillerClass.com — the class definition, the payment structure, the hearing date, and the notice of when registration and claim filing open.
- Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Pending MDLs — the monthly report the pending case count for MDL 2741 comes from.
- Courtroom View Network, trial notice for Aretino v. Monsanto Co., No. 20SL-CC03676 (St. Louis County Circuit Court) — the case number, judge, and trial schedule for the St. Louis County trial.
Figures and dates above should be confirmed against the original sources.
Related Lawsuit Topics
Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
The main overview of who is involved and what is alleged.
Monsanto v. Durnell
What the Supreme Court held on FIFRA preemption, and what survives.
Roundup and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
The diagnosis at the centre of the litigation.
Is Roundup Dangerous?
What the research says about glyphosate and cancer risk.
Paraquat Parkinson’s Lawsuits
The other major pesticide litigation, and how it differs.
Mass Torts
How MDLs, bellwethers, and preemption defences actually work.
Find Out If You May Have a Case
If you or a family member used Roundup for years and were later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a free case review can tell you two things. Whether that history still supports a claim after Durnell, and whether your state's deadline still allows one.
Free and no obligation. Lawsuit Center is not a law firm and submitting a request does not create an attorney-client relationship.
