The Glyphosate Legal Battle: Corporate Immunity Is on the Table

A Supreme Court case, state preemption bills, and what the outcome means for all of us

The Glyphosate Series - Part 4 of 5

The science around glyphosate is contested. The legal fight is urgent. And the outcome of what happens in the next few months will matter for every American - not just those who have developed cancer after Roundup exposure.

How We Got Here: $11 Billion and Counting

In 2018, Bayer acquired Monsanto for approximately $63 billion. At the time, Monsanto was already facing lawsuits over Roundup and its alleged link to cancer. Bayer's executives apparently concluded the litigation risk was manageable. They were wrong.

The first major verdict came the same year: a California jury awarded $289 million to a school groundskeeper who had developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of heavy Roundup exposure. That verdict was later reduced, but it opened the floodgates.

By 2020, Bayer was facing approximately 125,000 lawsuits. It agreed to pay up to $10.9 billion to settle the majority of them. The company continued to sell glyphosate-based products without any cancer warning on the label.

The litigation did not stop. As of early 2026, more than 60,000 cases remain. A Georgia jury awarded $2 billion in punitive damages in March 2025. More cases are being filed. Bayer's litigation exposure has grown so large that the company has reportedly considered placing its Monsanto agriculture division in bankruptcy.

The Strategy: End the Lawsuits Through Legislation

Facing ongoing financial exposure, Bayer shifted strategy. Rather than continuing to fight individual cases, the company launched a coordinated campaign to make future lawsuits legally impossible.

At the state level, Bayer founded the Modern Ag Alliance and began pushing legislation in multiple states that would codify that federal pesticide labeling requirements preempt state failure-to-warn claims. In plain language: if the EPA approves a label without a cancer warning, no one in that state could sue the company for failing to include one. As of early 2026, this legislation has been introduced in at least eleven states. In Idaho, it has been blocked two years in a row after polling showed 90 percent of Idaho residents oppose giving chemical companies legal immunity. A broad coalition of more than fifty organizations successfully stripped a federal version of this language from the year-end appropriations bill in late 2025.

At the Supreme Court level, Bayer asked the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the central legal question once and for all. In January 2026, the Court agreed to hear Monsanto v. Durnell, a case brought by a Missouri man who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after decades of Roundup use. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 27, 2026, with a decision expected by summer 2026.

What the Supreme Court Will Decide

The legal question sounds technical but the stakes are enormous: does the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims against pesticide manufacturers?

Bayer's argument: because the EPA approved Roundup's label, federal law supersedes any state claim that the label should have included a cancer warning. If the Supreme Court agrees, anyone harmed by glyphosate exposure would effectively lose the ability to seek justice in state court - where virtually all of these lawsuits have been filed.

A circuit split already exists: the Third Circuit sided with Bayer in 2024, while the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits had previously ruled against preemption. The Supreme Court's resolution will set a national standard.

The Trump administration filed a brief supporting Bayer's position - a notable alignment given the administration's stated MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) commitments to removing toxins from the food supply. That contradiction has drawn criticism from MAHA advocates who have been among glyphosate's most vocal opponents.

Why This Case Extends Far Beyond Glyphosate

A ruling in Bayer's favor would not just end Roundup lawsuits. It would establish a legal framework in which any company that obtains EPA approval for a product label is effectively shielded from state liability for failure to warn - even if subsequent science reveals the product causes harm, even if the company knew of risks it did not disclose, and even if the foundational safety studies were fraudulent.

This is a structural question about corporate accountability. The state tort system has historically served as a backstop that incentivizes companies to act responsibly when federal regulation moves too slowly or is too closely influenced by industry. Eliminating that backstop for pesticides sets a precedent that other industries will seek to extend.

Farmers, farmworkers, and rural communities bear the greatest direct exposure. But the legal outcome affects every consumer and the basic question of whether citizens can hold corporations accountable when those corporations knowingly withheld information about harm.

- - -

In Part 5 - our final installment - we bring it home: practical steps you can take right now to reduce your exposure, why choosing organic is one of the most powerful market signals available to you, and how consumer demand drives the systemic change that policy alone has not delivered.

- - -

Lis Rodriguez is a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist and integrative and functional medicine practitioner. She founded Professional Nutrition Consulting, PLLC in 2009 and writes about environmental nutrition, public health, and whole-person wellness at LisRodriguez.com.

- - -

References

CSG South. (2025). Lawsuits and legislation: What's happening with glyphosate-based herbicides.https://csgsouth.org/policies/lawsuits-and-legislation-whats-happening-with-glyphosate-based-herbicides/

Beyond Pesticides. (2026, January 7). Bayer/Monsanto legislation to stop lawsuits for failing to disclose product hazards stalls in House. https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2026/01/bayer-monsanto-legislation-to-stop-lawsuits-for-failing-to-disclose-product-hazards-stalls-in-house/

Farm Action. (2026). Supreme Court showdown: Farmers' rights vs. corporate power. https://farmaction.us/supreme-court-showdown-farmers-rights-vs-corporate-power/

Legal Planet. (2026, February 3). Pesticides, cancer, and failure-to-warn at the Supreme Court. https://legal-planet.org/2026/02/03/pesticides-cancer-and-failure-to-warn-at-the-supreme-court/