Supreme Court Takes Bayer Roundup Case on EPA Label Preemption
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal in a Missouri Roundup case, a move that could determine whether Environmental Protection Agency approval of the weedkiller’s label blocks thousands of state lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn users about cancer risks. The justices will decide if EPA’s decision to approve glyphosate products without a cancer warning label preempts state failure‑to‑warn claims, after lower courts split and a Missouri jury awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non‑Hodgkin’s lymphoma from spraying Roundup in a St. Louis community garden. The Trump administration has reversed the Biden administration’s stance and filed in support of Bayer, aligning with the company’s argument that it should not be punished under state law for following federal labeling requirements. Bayer, which faces about 181,000 Roundup claims and has set aside $16 billion for settlements, has already pulled glyphosate from U.S. residential Roundup but continues to sell it for agricultural use tied to genetically modified crops, and warns it may exit the U.S. farm market if litigation continues. Environmental and consumer groups say Bayer is turning to the high court because it keeps losing before juries and fear a broad ruling could sharply curtail Americans’ ability to sue over pesticides even when new health evidence emerges.
📌 Key Facts
- The Supreme Court agreed Jan. 16, 2026 to hear Bayer’s appeal in a Missouri Roundup cancer case.
- The core legal question is whether EPA’s approval of Roundup’s label without a cancer warning preempts state failure‑to‑warn lawsuits.
- Bayer faces roughly 181,000 Roundup claims, has reserved $16 billion to settle cases, and has removed glyphosate from U.S. residential Roundup while keeping it in agricultural formulations.
- The Trump administration has filed in Bayer’s favor, reversing the prior Biden administration position on preemption.
- The Missouri case involves a $1.25 million jury award to a Roundup user with non‑Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and follows a 2022 Supreme Court refusal to take a similar California case.
📊 Relevant Data
Non-Hispanic White Americans exhibit the highest mortality rates from Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma compared to other racial groups, with rates of 12.62 per 100,000 for Non-Hispanic Whites, versus lower rates for other groups such as Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics.
Trends and disparities in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma related mortality in the United States, 1999-2020 — PMC - NCBI
In the United States, approximately 74.22% of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients are White, 9.15% are Black, 9.39% are Hispanic, and the rest are other groups, based on a study of 777,740 patients.
U.S. agricultural workers, who are primary users of glyphosate-based products, are disproportionately Hispanic, with Hispanics of Mexican origin comprising 48% of the farmworker population, followed by Non-Hispanic Whites at 41%, based on demographic profiles.
Demographic Profile of the “Farmworker Population” in the United States — University of Nebraska Medical Center DigitalCommons@UNMC
Hispanic agricultural workers in California experience disproportionate exposure to agricultural pesticides, including glyphosate, compared to other groups.
Racial Disparities in Exposure to Ag Pesticides Documented while Trump Administration Dismantles Programs — Beyond Pesticides
Banning glyphosate in U.S. agriculture could result in a $2.9 billion drop in net farm income, more than doubling food inflation, and an additional 33.72 million tons of carbon emissions annually due to increased tilling.
Glyphosate loss would cost farmers $2.9B, cause massive food inflation — Michigan Farm News
📰 Source Timeline (1)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time