Supreme Court to Hear Roundup Liability Appeal Involving Bayer AG

Bayer’s Roundup Appeal Moves to the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Takes Up Roundup Liability Fight

The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 11 announces it will hear Monsanto Co. v. Durnell on April 27, taking direct aim at a high‑profile liability battle that now sits with Bayer AG following its 2018 acquisition of Monsanto. The case stems from a Missouri jury verdict that awards plaintiff John Durnell $1.25 million after finding he developed non‑Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to Roundup, Monsanto’s glyphosate‑based weedkiller, and that the company failed to warn him. A state appeals court affirms the liability finding and the Missouri Supreme Court declines review, leaving the national litigation to the federal high court.

Bayer and its legal team argue that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and federal pesticide labeling law preempt state failure‑to‑warn claims, contending that allowing state juries to impose liability would undercut federal regulatory judgments. The U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer files a brief siding with Monsanto, warning the court that permitting the Missouri ruling to stand could allow juries to second‑guess the Environmental Protection Agency’s science‑based assessments of glyphosate. Missouri legislative efforts to shield the company from state law claims fail, keeping the question of preemption squarely before the Supreme Court.

The outcome has broad implications for Bayer and the agrochemical industry by potentially constraining the pathway for state‑court product‑liability suits and steering dispute resolution toward federal agencies and statutes. Scientific disagreement deepens stakes: the World Health Organization’s cancer agency classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, while the EPA rejects that finding and California places glyphosate on a list of cancer‑causing chemicals in 2017. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say Monsanto has “known for decades” about risks and marketed Roundup as safe, allegations Bayer denies. A favorable ruling for Monsanto could narrow state remedies and alter liability landscapes for herbicides nationwide.

Privacy warrant case heads to the court

Separately, the court schedules Chatrie v. United States for April 27 to consider whether the Fourth Amendment bars warrants that collect cellphone users’ location histories near crime scenes, a decision that is likely to shape law‑enforcement practices and digital privacy standards.

FCC adjudication powers under review

The justices also set consolidated arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Verizon Communications v. FCC for April 21 to decide whether provisions of the Communications Act authorizing in‑house FCC adjudications and penalties are constitutional, a ruling with potential ripple effects across regulated industries and administrative‑law practice.