non-Hodgkin lymphoma

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 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 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 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 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.

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.