Supreme Court hands Bayer a shield against 200,000 Roundup cancer suits

John Durnell spent 20 years hosing down his St. Louis neighborhood with Roundup. He got cancer, won $1.25M — and now the courthouse door is closed.

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 German agrochemical manufacturer that acquired Roundup’s original producer, Monsanto, in 2018.

The decision is a victory for President Donald Trump’s administration, which argued in support of Bayer. 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, held that Roundup cannot be sued in state courts for failure to warn because federal regulators have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label. Federal law also bars states from imposing additional or different labeling requirements, the opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh states.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Neil Gorsuch, dissented, saying that Monsanto could have added a warning without violating federal law.

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 a claimant’s 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. But Durnell never received the money as his case was appealed. Durnell, 75, said Thursday that his cancer is in remission, and he will be fine without the money.

But “there are thousands of cases that are like mine that will not see court now,” Durnell said. “So that is the biggest disappointment for me.”

There is still fierce debate about whether Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer. 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 was 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 leaves room for other lawsuits alleging problems with the product’s design, and Durnell said he is considering bringing a new case on different grounds.

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, Bayer has tried to persuade states to pass laws shielding it from liability in failure-to-warn lawsuits. North Dakota was the first to do so, followed by Georgia and Kentucky.

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.

After the high court’s decision on Thursday, prominent MAHA activist Kelly Ryerson, known to her supporters as “Glyphosate Girl,” called the Trump administration’s participation in the case “unforgivable.”

Some health advocates contend the EPA’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.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com