Supreme Court to Hear Bayer’s Appeal on Roundup Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear Bayer’s request to limit a lawsuit claiming that its herbicide, Roundup, causes cancer. This could help Bayer avoid potentially massive financial repercussions.

The case revolves around a man who alleges he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after prolonged exposure to Roundup. The Missouri Court of Appeals had affirmed a jury’s $1.25 million verdict in favor of John Darnell, the plaintiff.

Following the announcement, Bayer’s stock climbed nearly 5%. The court hasn’t revealed when it will begin hearing arguments related to the case.

Bayer’s CEO, Bill Anderson, remarked that this decision is a significant part of a broader strategy to manage the ongoing litigation more effectively. He emphasized that companies shouldn’t be penalized under state laws for adhering to federal warning label regulations.

There was no immediate response from lawyers representing the plaintiffs.

The appeals court had previously dismissed Bayer’s argument that federal pesticide laws prevent lawsuits based on state law.

Bayer is currently facing similar accusations from around 65,000 plaintiffs across various courts. Roundup is one of the most commonly used herbicides in the United States.

The former administration, under President Trump, had urged the Supreme Court to take up Bayer’s appeal. U.S. Attorney General D. John Sauer supported Bayer’s interpretation of the law in documents filed with the court.

Bayer contends that consumers who were not informed of an increased cancer risk associated with Roundup shouldn’t have grounds for lawsuits, especially since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not identified any such risks and does not require warnings about them. They argue that federal law limits their ability to add additional warnings beyond what the EPA permits.

The Supreme Court ruling could significantly affect Bayer’s litigation landscape, as a decision affirming that federal law supersedes state claims would cut down on many ongoing lawsuits.

Darnell’s legal team has urged the Supreme Court to reject Bayer’s appeal, noting that Darnell based his decision to use Roundup on the company’s marketing, which they claim did not sufficiently inform consumers about potential risks.

Bayer previously settled about $10 billion worth of Roundup lawsuits in 2020, but those agreements didn’t cover future claims. Since then, new lawsuits have emerged, with plaintiffs alleging they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers from using Roundup at their homes or workplaces.

Since acquiring Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of Monsanto in 2018, Bayer asserts that extensive research has shown the herbicide and its main ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use.

The EPA has reportedly determined multiple times that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans and has consistently approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings, as stated in Sauer’s brief to the Supreme Court.

Bayer has had mixed results in court over Roundup claims, winning some cases while also facing substantial jury verdicts, including a notable $2.1 billion decision in a 2025 case in Georgia.

Bayer had previously sought Supreme Court intervention in 2022, but that request was denied. Since then, one federal appeals court has sided with the company, though others have not.

In its ongoing battle, Bayer has hinted it might withdraw Roundup from the U.S. market, having replaced glyphosate in consumer products with another herbicide.