Monsanto

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto v. Durnell that states cannot impose pesticide warnings differing from federal standards, affecting Minnesota's ability to label glyphosate-based Roundup with additional health warnings. The 7-2 decision overturned a Missouri jury's award to a farmer who claimed Roundup caused his cancer, citing federal preemption of state strict liability doctrines.

Prominent activists with the 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement are expressing outrage and feeling betrayed after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto, stating the company does not need to include a cancer risk warning on its Roundup weedkiller. The decision has sparked backlash within the movement.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for labeling issues in pesticides like Roundup, as federal law preempts such claims. The decision dismissed a $1.25 million verdict awarded to a man who claimed Roundup caused his cancer, with justices citing compliance with EPA regulations. The ruling split the court, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto in Roundup litigation, stating federal pesticide law preempts state failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has not mandated a cancer warning on the product label. The case, Monsanto v. Durnell, did not resolve whether Roundup causes cancer but focused on legal preemption under federal law.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bayer in the Roundup case, limiting future lawsuits against the company and its subsidiary Monsanto. Patti Goldman of Earthjustice discussed the decision on ChicagoLIVE.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal law blocks state failure-to-warn lawsuits against Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto, regarding Roundup weed killer labels. The decision holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state claims seeking cancer warnings on EPA-approved Roundup labels, marking a setback for cancer patients pursuing legal action.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for labeling issues in Roundup, dismissing a $1.25 million verdict for a man who claimed the herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The decision emphasized federal law preemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but faced criticism from dissenting justices over consumer protection concerns.

The Supreme Court ruled to end deportation protections for many Haitians and Syrians, dismissed Monsanto's liability in Roundup lawsuits, and struck down a Hawaii gun law. The decisions were discussed with Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe.

The Supreme Court blocked a Roundup cancer lawsuit in a 7-2 decision, ruling federal law prevents state failure-to-warn claims against Monsanto. The ruling overturned a $1.25 million jury award to John Durnell and is expected to dismiss thousands of similar lawsuits, though a $7.25 billion class-action settlement remains intact. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the decision relies on a non-existent labeling requirement.

The Supreme Court blocked a lawsuit alleging Roundup weed killer causes cancer, ruling 7-2 that federal law prevents state failure-to-warn claims against Monsanto. The decision overturned a $1.25 million award to plaintiff John Durnell, while a $7.25 billion class-action settlement remains pending. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the ruling was based on a non-existent labeling requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bayer, the maker of Roundup, blocking state court lawsuits over failure-to-warn claims about cancer risks. The decision, which aligns with federal regulatory findings, is expected to end thousands of litigation cases but faces criticism from plaintiffs' lawyers. Bayer plans to proceed with a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve remaining claims, while Missouri resident John Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup, was the lead plaintiff in the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for Roundup's labeling, stating federal law preempts such claims. The decision overturned a $1.25 million award to a man who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion and a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Monsanto, holding that state lawsuits against the company for failing to warn consumers about Roundup's potential cancer risks are preempted by federal pesticide labeling laws. The majority opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) bars states from imposing additional labeling requirements beyond those approved by the EPA, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing the ruling creates a non-existent labeling requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for labeling shortcomings in pesticides like Roundup, as federal law preempts such claims. The decision overturned a $1.25 million verdict awarded to John Durnell, who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), shielding the company from state liability over its weed killer Roundup. The decision held that federal law preempts state claims regarding pesticide labeling, with Justice Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion and Justice Jackson dissenting.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for labeling shortcomings in Roundup, citing federal preemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The decision overturned a $1.25 million Missouri verdict awarded to John Durnell, who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal law protects Monsanto from Roundup cancer lawsuits, as the EPA's approval of the product's label without a cancer warning preempts state failure-to-warn claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal law preempts state liability claims against Monsanto over Roundup's labeling, overturning a $1.25 million verdict awarded to a Missouri man who claimed the herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The decision, with Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion and Justice Jackson's dissent, held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulates pesticide labels, preventing states from imposing additional requirements.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold companies liable for labeling shortcomings in pesticides like Monsanto's Roundup, as federal law preempts such claims. The decision overturned a $1.25 million Missouri verdict awarded to John Durnell, who claimed Roundup caused his cancer, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to block thousands of lawsuits against Bayer, the maker of Roundup weedkiller, citing federal regulations that do not require cancer warnings. The decision allows Bayer to proceed with a $7.25 billion class-action settlement while dismissing claims based on failure-to-warn allegations.

The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the former Monsanto company, blocking thousands of state lawsuits over Roundup's label warnings. The 7-2 decision, led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, centers on claims that Roundup's ingredient causes cancer, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

Zach Lahn, a businessman and MAHA-aligned candidate, defeated President Trump's choice Randy Feenstra in Iowa's Republican gubernatorial primary. The win highlighted divisions within Trump's coalition and signaled growing support for MAHA's anti-pesticide and pro-regenerative farming policies.

Bayer’s proposed $7.25 billion Roundup settlement is challenged as unconstitutional in a legal filing, alleging it violates due process by favoring lawyers with $675 million in fees while offering minimal compensation to cancer victims. Critics argue the deal allows Bayer to continue selling glyphosate-based herbicides without cancer warnings and binds future users to the settlement terms.

The Supreme Court is considering a case that may limit Americans' ability to sue pesticide companies like Monsanto over alleged health harms from their products. The case, involving oral arguments on Monday, centers on whether consumers can hold pesticide-makers liable for failing to warn about potential health risks.

The U.S. House is set to vote on a controversial Republican farm bill criticized for favoring industrial producers and chemical companies, cutting food assistance programs like SNAP, and weakening regulations on toxic agrochemicals. The bill faces backlash amid rising food prices, farm bankruptcies, and legal battles over pesticide accountability.

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could limit antipesticide lawsuits, pitting the Make America Healthy Again movement against the Trump administration. The case, requested by Monsanto, involves the weedkiller Roundup and its liability issues.

A former gardener who used Roundup weedkiller for years is now battling cancer and pursuing legal action against the product's manufacturer. The case highlights concerns about the safety of Roundup, a widely used herbicide linked to health risks.

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could limit liability in pesticide lawsuits, pitting the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement against the Trump administration. The case, requested by Monsanto, centers on Roundup, a weedkiller frequently involved in litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on a case involving Monsanto's weed-killing pesticide, with potential consequences including corporate accountability for health risks or agricultural crises. Opposing legal briefs warn that a pro-Monsanto ruling could allow companies to hide product dangers, while a ruling against the company might lead to food shortages and agricultural devastation.