The Supreme Court case will decide whether Monsanto can be sued for failing to warn about the potential cancer caused by the herbicide Roundup.
Trump executive order declares glyphosate critical to national security
President Donald Trump signed an executive order prioritizing glyphosate production in the United States, citing national security, food security, and military needs.
WASHINGTON – John Darnell was a “spray guy.”
For more than 20 years, he’s been using the popular herbicide Roundup to beautify parks, playgrounds and sidewalks near his home in the historic St. Louis-Sollard neighborhood.
But after developing blood cancer, Darnell became one of tens of thousands of Americans to sue the makers of Roundup.
In 2023, a jury agreed that the herbicide was the cause of Darnell’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and said Monsanto owed Darnell $1.25 million.
Darnell is currently at the center of a Supreme Court case scheduled for April 27th over whether Monsanto can be sued for failing to warn about the cancer risks of glyphosate.. This chemical was the active ingredient in Roundup, but Monsanto has since discontinued the use of glyphosate in Roundup products sold for home use.
The company faces billions of dollars in potential liability and has said it may have to stop selling glyphosate to U.S. farmers if the lawsuit continues, a scenario that major agricultural groups argue poses a “catastrophic risk to the U.S. food supply.”
Public health groups say the lawsuit is necessary because the Environmental Protection Agency is failing to protect Americans from the risks associated with glyphosate. As a lawyer, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. attorney, co-founded one of the groups that sued Monsanto over Roundup and filed briefs in support of Darnell.
But in a move that alarms the “Make America Healthy Again” crowd — people who want a more organic lifestyle and distrust drug companies — the Trump administration is backing the company. That’s not all.
President Donald Trump has also called for increased domestic production of glyphosate and shielding manufacturers from liability, saying there is no comparable alternative.
The battle is unfolding as a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement with the company that could resolve much of the lawsuit.
Uncertainty about what the Supreme Court will rule could provide further incentive for those suing Monsanto to accept a pending deal that is not dependent on the outcome of the lawsuit.
“I can’t trust the Supreme Court in this situation,” said Howard Kornbluh, another former Roundup user who has non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. “It’s not very likely that (compensation) will be zero.”
German pharmaceutical and biotech giant Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, hopes both the Supreme Court and the pending settlement will limit the scope of future litigation. The company is also pushing for legislation to shield it from liability.
Glyphosate is a ‘revolutionary agriculture’
Introduced in the 1970s, Roundup quickly became the best-selling herbicide in the United States and an essential part of agriculture.
Glyphosate “has revolutionized agriculture by providing a highly effective, broad-spectrum, and low-cost weed control solution,” the American Federation of Farm Bureau and other major agricultural organizations said in a Supreme Court filing.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides, has never required glyphosate to carry a cancer warning label.
But in 2015, the World Health Organization agency said glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans,” prompting a lawsuit. In December, a 2000 scientific review widely cited as showing the chemical’s safety was retracted, citing conflicts of interest between the authors and Monsanto.
Monsanto claims glyphosate is safe
Monsanto maintains that glyphosate is safe for people to use. The company blames the flood of lawsuits on Roundup’s popularity, the fact that non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a “very common, naturally occurring cancer,” and heavy advertising by trial lawyers trying to drum up business.
The company’s lawyers told the Supreme Court that the EPA has “considered and rejected” the idea of requiring warnings like the one recommended by the Darnell jury.
“EPA has concluded time and time again that glyphosate does not cause cancer,” they said in their submission. “Federal law does not require or permit warnings to the contrary.”
Roundup users say cancer warnings are needed
Although Darnell’s cancer is in remission, his lawyers say it has left lasting marks, including ongoing problems with his legs from multiple rounds of chemotherapy.
He told the jury that heard his case that he could no longer help improve his neighborhood because “I don’t have that much strength anymore.”
His lawyers argue that nothing in federal law or EPA regulations prohibits Monsanto from adding cancer warnings to its labels.
Roe Fraser, one of Mr. Darnell’s lawyers, told the jury: “Walmart has given people who spilled milk in its stores a better warning than Monsanto ever gave to buyers of Roundup lawn and garden products.”
Instead, “Monsanto has promoted Roundup as safe to spray on T-shirts and pants,” the lawyers said in written arguments before the Supreme Court.
A group of former EPA employees filed a brief in support of Darnell, arguing with the Supreme Court that EPA-approved labels do not always contain all the appropriate warnings. Officials say manufacturers have a responsibility to keep the required safety information up to date with both the EPA and their labels.
EPA safety review expired
The government is required to conduct an independent safety review every 15 years. But the latest update has been delayed for years because a federal court in 2022 said the EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate is carcinogenic when it reached a preliminary decision during the first Trump administration.
During the Biden and Trump administrations, the Justice Department has taken opposing positions on whether people like Darnell can sue over labels. The government is now on Monsanto’s side.
Government lawyers said in a Supreme Court filing that the EPA conducts a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether a product poses an “unreasonable risk,” which is a more balanced approach than what a jury would consider.
“Even though millions of people benefit from products that are safe and effective 99.99% of the time, those benefits are often deemed not worth the price for a single plaintiff who suffers a rare injury or illness and claims the product is to blame,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.
Should Roundup users sue or settle?
Christopher Seeger, an attorney who helped negotiate the ongoing $7.25 billion collective settlement, says plaintiffs lose in about half of the Roundup cases that go to court.
Most of the clients represented by Seeger Weiss support the deal, which will likely have to be decided before knowing what the Supreme Court will rule.
“It’s a little bit more risky not to go out,” Seger said.
Kornbluh, a Seeger Weiss client who supported the settlement, said the 2019 diagnosis was “devastating news because there is no history of blood cancer in my family.”
The 84-year-old retiree said he had been using Roundup for decades to combat weeds around his home in Scottsdale, Arizona, believing he could trust the products on Costco shelves.
Currently, Kornbluh has a weakened immune system, so he has given up going to symphony orchestras and avoids crowds. Regular blood tests can feel like playing Russian roulette.
“My situation will never get better,” he said. “I just hope the situation doesn’t get worse.”
Kornbluh hopes that the compensation he receives from Bayer will cover some of his medical costs if his health deteriorates. He also believes the settlement is more likely to force the Supreme Court to hold the company responsible for causing his cancer.
“I don’t think the Supreme Court is on the side of consumers in this day and age,” he said.
A decision is expected to be made by the end of June or early July.
