Glyphosate: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Bayer
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling in the Durnell case regarding glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. In the ruling, the court confirms that federal law explicitly precludes state-level lawsuits alleging a lack of warning labels if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unequivocally determined a product to be safe.
Glyphosate is one of the most thoroughly studied pesticides in the world. The ruling reaffirms the central role of the safety assessment conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Accordingly, companies cannot be held liable under a patchwork of state-by-state regulations if they comply with federal requirements for safety labeling. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, which received broad support across ideological lines, is likely to significantly curb the litigation surrounding Roundup.
“This ruling is good for farmers in the U.S. who contribute to global food security. It provides the regulatory clarity that innovative companies like Bayer need to supply agricultural products for the production of affordable food,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. “The litigation has placed a significant financial burden on the company and damaged public trust. This ruling delivers long-overdue justice and clarity. Now it is high time to close this chapter. Based on the decision, we will continue to pursue our multi-pronged strategy, including the class-action settlement already announced.”
The affirmation of the ruling in the Durnell case is likely to result in the dismissal of existing lawsuits alleging insufficient warning labels under state law and prevent future lawsuits. The majority of the pending glyphosate lawsuits are based on this line of argument.
In February 2026, Monsanto reached a class-action settlement with plaintiffs’ attorneys to resolve the Roundup litigation in the U.S. The long-term agreement is intended to settle both pending and potential future lawsuits alleging non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Monsanto had previously emphasized that the class-action settlement and the proceedings before the Supreme Court are independent yet complementary components of its multi-pronged strategy. The class-action settlement has already been preliminarily approved and, together with the now-favorable ruling, is expected to play a significant role in substantially reducing the litigation.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has repeatedly and unequivocally determined that glyphosate is not carcinogenic when used properly. All leading regulatory agencies worldwide have reached the same conclusion in their own reviews: from the European Food Safety Authority to regulatory agencies in Asia and Latin America. This is therefore not the assessment of a single agency or government, but a global scientific consensus.
This scientific consensus was not called into question by new findings, but by a report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that is more than ten years old. Plaintiffs’ attorneys had introduced this report in court, even though all leading regulatory agencies contradict its conclusions. The fact that a minority opinion was allowed to override the expert assessment of national regulatory agencies and the scientific community—even though federal law requires a uniform evaluation—has led to a patchwork of requirements set by individual juries—and to uncertainty for manufacturers, farmers, and consumers. The current ruling restores the integrity of the scientific regulatory process involving independent experts.
For years, the litigation industry deprived the U.S. agricultural sector of legal certainty, even though there was no scientific basis for this. Glyphosate-based herbicides are a cornerstone of modern, sustainable agriculture. They contribute to food security, keep production costs affordable, and enable sustainable, no-till farming. After nearly a decade of continuous attacks by the well-funded litigation industry, this ruling restores the regulatory clarity that the agricultural sector, the food industry, and American consumers need. The ruling also helps restore public confidence in the scientific consensus on the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides. The studies on glyphosate safety cited by regulatory agencies in recent reviews are publicly available.
