Supreme Court tosses $1.25 million verdict for man who says Roundup caused his cancer

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Thursday sided against a Missouri man who claimed that the herbicide Roundup caused his cancer. The majority of the court backed an argument from the product’s manufacturer that the lawsuit should have been barred because the federal government does not require a cancer warning on the label.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a 7-2 court. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The lawsuit was filed by John Durnell, who became known as “spray man” in his St. Louis neighborhood for using Roundup in the parks around his home. Years later, after Durnell was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, he sued Monsanto, claiming his exposure to the pesticide was to blame. A jury awarded him $1.25 million.

The high court’s decision on Thursday could have implications for thousands of other lawsuits that have been filed against the company over its weedkiller. And it comes on an issue that has increasingly motivated President Donald Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” supporters. Hundreds of those advocates turned out at the Supreme Court in April when the case was argued, rallying for consumer protections promised by MAHA’s leader, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Kennedy ginned up MAHA support for Trump in the 2024 election, in part on assurances that he would join the administration and crack down on alleged environmental toxins such as glyphosate – the active ingredient in Roundup.

Kennedy was a leading advocate against pesticides long before he joined the Trump administration. He was part of the legal team that represented DeWayne “Lee” Johnson, a San Francisco school groundskeeper who was diagnosed in 2014 with terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. For years, Johnson had sprayed Roundup around the grounds he maintained.

Durnell’s win rested on the idea that Monsanto failed to provide a cancer warning and marketed the product as safe to use without protection. Monsanto has maintained that glyphosate does not cause cancer. And the company said that a federal law that gives wide authority to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate weedkillers preempted the state law claims. The EPA has never required cancer warnings on the product’s labeling.

Durnell is one of more than 100,000 people who have sued Monsanto over Roundup. That litigation was sparked in part by a 2015 finding from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that classified glyphosate as an agent that is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018.

In a statement, Bayer said that the decision would provide regulatory clarity for manufacturers and farmers and “should help significantly contain” Roundup lawsuits. Bayer also said the ruling should result in the dismissal of current claims.

The company’s lawyers focused on a 1972 law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which sets out extensive approval and label regulations for herbicides. The whole point of that law, the company argued, was to bar individual states from imposing a patchwork of labeling requirements on pesticides.

The company has removed glyphosate from the consumer version of its product, but it remains the central ingredient in industrial versions widely used by farmers.

In February, the company negotiated a $7.25 billion settlement that awaits final approval in Missouri state court, where many of the claims were filed. Plaintiffs eligible for the deal would receive annual payments from Bayer for up to 21 years, despite the Supreme Court decision on Thursday.

“This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides, and underscores why we negotiated a $7.25 billion settlement that guarantees compensation to Roundup victims regardless of today’s decision,” Christopher Seeger, a lawyer for plaintiffs backing the settlement, said in a statement.

“We urge those opposing this agreement, including the attorney who unsuccessfully argued Durnell, to drop their opposition so that tens of thousands of cancer victims no longer have to wait for justice after a decade of delay,” Seeger said.

Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, warned that if the Supreme Court sided with Durnell, it would open other industries that are subject to similar federal requirements to lawsuits. That potentially includes medical devices, cosmetics, pool products and even pet food subject to at least some federal labeling regulations.

Despite Kennedy’s previous advocacy on the issue, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to take up the case and supported Monsanto’s argument, warning that the lower courts’ decisions in Durnell’s favor would lead to a “state-by-state cacophony” of regulations. A Missouri appeals court upheld the Durnell verdict and Monsanto appealed to the US Supreme Court last year after the state’s highest court declined to review that decision.

At times, Kennedy publicly bristled at the administration’s support. After President Donald Trump ordered more US production of glyphosate in February, the health secretary published a lengthy statement calling pesticides and herbicides “toxic by design” products that put Americans’ health at risk.

But he also conceded that farmers depend on the chemicals to stabilize crop production and the food supply.

His response angered some MAHA advocates who have argued that farmers and industry can reduce pesticide use without endangering the food supply, or shielding manufacturers from lawsuits.

“The message from this ruling is dangerous: if a federal agency approves a product, manufacturers may be shielded from accountability even when people are harmed,” Vani Hari, a wellness influencer known for her “Food Babe” blog, said in a statement.

Hari and other speakers at the April “People vs. Poison” rally warned that the decision would inflame MAHA-aligned voters ahead of the midterm elections this fall.

“President Trump campaigned on MAHA and then filed legal briefs protecting Bayer-Monsanto from farmers who got cancer because of their products. That’s a serious betrayal,” Tim Ryan, a former Democratic congressman from Ohio, said in a statement.

Zach Lahn, an Iowa farmer who beat out Republican veterans to win gubernatorial primary this month, said Thursday that it was a “terrible decision” by the Supreme Court.

Lahn has run his campaign in part on promises to address alleged health risks of pesticides.

“Farmers have now lost their ability to have recourse when they are harmed by these products,” Lahn wrote on X.

This story has been updated with additional details.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.