The Roundup litigation has reached the United States Supreme Court. Bayer wanted the Court to review a major verdict from a lower court. The case involved Edwin Hardeman, who blamed Roundup for his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, the Supreme Court refused to hear Bayer’s appeal. That move left the lower court’s judgment intact.
Hardeman v. Monsanto
Hardeman had sued Monsanto, which Bayer now owns. He argued that glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, caused his cancer. A jury in federal court awarded Hardeman $25 million in damages. The Ninth Circuit upheld that award. Bayer then asked the Supreme Court to step in. Bayer claimed that federal law shielded it from failure-to-warn claims. Bayer also argued that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted Hardeman’s state-law claims.
The Supreme Court did not accept Bayer’s arguments. It declined to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision. This refusal meant that Hardeman’s victory stayed in place. It also suggested that state-law failure-to-warn claims remain valid against Roundup. Plaintiffs saw this as a turning point. They viewed the Supreme Court’s move as a sign that preemption may not protect Bayer from similar claims.
Bayer had relied on the EPA’s stance on glyphosate. The EPA had concluded that glyphosate does not require a cancer warning. Bayer pointed to that position as proof that Hardeman’s lawsuit conflicted with federal law. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. It stated that the EPA’s findings did not block Hardeman’s state-based failure-to-warn claim.
Effects of Supreme Court’s Roundup Decision
The Supreme Court’s choice to deny certiorari does not establish new binding precedent. But it still has major consequences for thousands of pending Roundup cases. Plaintiffs can continue to assert that Roundup causes cancer. They can also maintain that Monsanto should have warned about those risks. Without the Supreme Court’s direct review, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning remains influential in similar lawsuits.
The Court’s action signaled a shift in Bayer’s legal strategy. Bayer had hoped the justices would resolve the preemption question in its favor. That strategy failed when the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Bayer then pivoted to large-scale settlement talks and payouts. Plaintiffs, buoyed by the Court’s decision, often refused lower settlement offers. They believed courts would remain open to their claims.
This development placed more pressure on Bayer. The company faced a wave of lawsuits in federal and state courts. Many plaintiffs came forward with cancer diagnoses after heavy Roundup use. The Supreme Court’s move allowed those plaintiffs to see a clearer path to trial or larger settlement amounts. Some cases resolved through settlement, while others progressed toward trial dates.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The refusal to hear Bayer’s appeal also sparked discussions about the EPA’s role. Some critics believe the EPA’s stance on glyphosate deserves more scrutiny. They claim that the Supreme Court’s decision shows that federal approval does not fully protect companies from liability. They want more transparency around how the agency reviews chemical safety data.
Bayer continues to fight these lawsuits on multiple fronts. The company insists that Roundup remains safe when used correctly. Plaintiffs disagree and point to studies that link glyphosate to cancer risks. Some countries have already banned or restricted glyphosate-based products. Many states in the U.S. also consider stricter rules for pesticides like Roundup.
Observers see this litigation as a landmark in consumer protection law. The Roundup MDL addresses the intersection of corporate conduct, regulatory guidance, and personal injury claims. The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene delivered a clear message. Federal approval of a product’s label does not automatically shield a company from state-based lawsuits. That message now guides future toxic-tort claims.
Legacy of the Hardeman Court Case
The Hardeman decision offers several takeaways for mass-tort litigation. It demonstrates that courts may reject broad preemption defenses. It reveals that plaintiffs can succeed with credible scientific evidence and proof of harm. It highlights the importance of warning labels and corporate disclosure. It also shows that large verdicts can stand when appellate courts find no conflict with federal law.
This chapter in the Roundup saga remains ongoing. Plaintiffs continue to file new cases. Bayer continues to seek a balanced resolution. Yet the Supreme Court’s refusal to review Hardeman’s verdict shaped the entire battlefield. It let the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning stand, which supports other plaintiffs in similar positions. That reality will influence Roundup litigation for years to come.
The Supreme Court’s decision did not create new legal doctrine. Instead, it confirmed that existing doctrine allows Hardeman’s verdict to remain. It reinforced the power of state consumer protection laws. It also underscored the role of juries in resolving factual disputes about product safety. For many observers, that might prove just as impactful as a full-blown decision on the merits.
Bayer may still search for new ways to challenge Roundup verdicts. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, trust that courts will continue to entertain their claims. The future remains uncertain, but the Supreme Court move set a clear tone. Companies cannot rely on federal law alone to block product liability suits, especially when state-law duties to warn come into play. The Hardeman result stands, and that fact now guides every other Roundup case in the pipeline.
