The corridors of Washington hummed louder than usual after the administration stepped forward to support Bayer’s high-stakes attempt to shut down a tidal wave of Roundup lawsuits—tens of thousands of them, all orbiting a single, incendiary question: does the world’s most argued-over weedkiller cause cancer?
In a filing to the nation’s highest court, federal officials backed Bayer’s position that state-level lawsuits shouldn’t be able to override federal pesticide rules. The move triggered an immediate market jolt, sending Bayer’s shares climbing to heights the company hadn’t glimpsed in nearly two years.
Analysts were quick to scent the shift. Some pointed out that if the Supreme Court ultimately embraces this view, the sprawling sea of litigation—carrying billions in potential damages—could shrink dramatically. Bayer’s existing provisions for Roundup claims hover in the billions, and investors are watching closely for signs those reserves might finally ease.
At the heart of this confrontation is John Durnell, a Missouri man who won a verdict after linking his cancer diagnosis to long-term Roundup exposure. His case is one among more than 67,000 still awaiting resolution across state and federal courts.
Bayer, which inherited Roundup through its enormous purchase of Monsanto, insists the science is on its side: that study after study shows glyphosate, the product’s central ingredient, poses no carcinogenic threat to humans. Federal regulators have repeatedly approved labels without cancer warnings, a point the administration highlighted as it argued that courtroom juries shouldn’t be empowered to override scientific determinations made by specialized agencies.
That stance has gained applause from major business organisations that fear a precedent where companies complying with federal rules can still be crushed by state litigation. But critics counter that Bayer’s marketing, not just its labeling, misled consumers about risks they believe were real—and devastating.
The legal saga has become a long-running drama. Bayer has already spent around $10 billion to resolve a huge wave of cases, yet new ones keep arriving. Courtroom outcomes have swung wildly—from decisive Bayer victories to eye-watering jury awards, including a multibillion-dollar verdict earlier this year in Georgia, one the company later chose to settle.
Bayer has even floated the possibility of removing Roundup from the U.S. market entirely as it continues this relentless legal trench warfare. In the meantime, its consumer products have quietly shifted away from glyphosate in a bid to reshape the product’s future while the past remains entangled in litigation.
Whether the Supreme Court takes up the case may dictate how far this conflict stretches—and whether the nation’s most disputed herbicide stays rooted in the American landscape or becomes a relic of a bruising legal era.
