Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller
By LINDSAY WHITEHURST
Updated 9:17 AM CDT, June 25, 2026
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court sided with the maker of the Roundup weedkiller Thursday in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.
The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer, which acquired Roundup when it bought its original manufacturer Monsanto in 2018.
The decision is a victory for the Trump administration, but one that could be tricky politically since allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement want to rein in pesticide use.
The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company cant be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely.
The case before the court was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell. He developed a cancer called non-Hodgkins lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood associations spray guy, using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community.
A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. Its one of thousands of similar cases, including some multibillion-dollar damage awards.
...
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller (Original Post)
dalton99a
3 hrs ago
OP
So there is no wiggle room given to the idea that initial determinations being wrong?
Buckeyeblue
3 hrs ago
#2
Johnny2X2X
(24,592 posts)1. Bet this ruling will earn them a lot of "tips"
A reminder that the SCOTUS ruled bribes are totally fine if the bribe takes place after an action, not before.
Buckeyeblue
(6,479 posts)2. So there is no wiggle room given to the idea that initial determinations being wrong?
SheltieLover
(82,641 posts)3. Shocking
MichMan
(17,617 posts)4. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.
KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting
opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.
opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1068_n7ip.pdf
Ninga
(9,044 posts)5. I used Roundup for many years. I've had 2 forms of
non-Hodgkins Lymphoma since 2020.
Its criminal what the Supremes have done.
Whip-poor-will
(627 posts)6. Supremacist court
The court has been corrupted by the republican ideology of rule not govern
GiqueCee
(5,051 posts)7. High on the to-do list...
... following the mid term Blue Landslide should be the impeachment of John Roberts.
I was under the impression that known carcinogens were part of the RoundUp formulation. If that's true, then the Sinister Six got some 'splainin' to do. Or was that little tidbit simply suppressed, or not allowed as evidence? I wouldn't put anything past those people.
Maru Kitteh
(32,097 posts)8. This fascistic court must be METAPHORICALLY taken behind the shed
and put out of our collective misery.
ITAL
(1,438 posts)9. Two of the liberal justices were in the majority on this
The 7-2 ruling had an unexpected makeup. Only Jackson and Gorsuch dissented.
The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company cant be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely.
Federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely. What does that mean? Does science have any part to play here?