On June 25 in a 7-2 ruling written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted Bayer-Monsanto’s argument that a federal pesticide labeling law blocks peoples’ ability to file lawsuits under state law claiming that pesticide makers’ products could cause cancer.
The decision undermines the rights of Americans harmed by corporate misconduct to seek justice in court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in a dissent.
“Ultimately, the effect of the majority’s interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs . . .,” Brown said. She was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch in the dissent.
The decision threatens to extinguish thousands of pending lawsuits – and to block many future cases – by people who might have developed cancer and other serious illnesses after being exposed to pesticides, Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, said in a statement.
Those harmful chemicals include Bayer’s signature Roundup herbicide, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate.
“This case was never just about Bayer,” Cook said. “It was about whether states retain the authority to provide stronger protections for their residents when federal regulations fall short, and whether ordinary Americans can hold powerful corporations accountable when their pesticides cause harm.”
Trump backed Bayer’s claims
The decision comes after a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to back Bayer over the interest of Roundup victims, he said, adding the current Supreme Court has repeatedly tilted toward corporate interests in environmental and public health cases.
The administration intervened at every turn, pushing the court to side with Bayer at the expense of the many Americans harmed by toxic agricultural chemicals – consumers, farmers, farmworkers, groundskeepers, and others seeking their day in court, he said.
The Justice Department’s Office of the Solicitor General filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to take up the case, endorsing Bayer’s preemption argument.
President Donald Trump supported pesticide makers by signing an executive order in February to boost the production of glyphosate.
“The Trump administration didn’t sit on the sidelines – it lobbied the Supreme Court to strip Americans of their right to sue,” Cook said.
Limiting future lawsuits
The EWG and other environmental advocates argue the ruling will make it much harder for people exposed to hazardous crop chemicals to hold manufacturers accountable. The decision will shift power away from states that have played a key role in protecting public health.
Scientific evidence links widely used pesticides to many health harms, including cancers, birth defects, endocrine disruption, Parkinson’s disease, and infertility.
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the United States and the world and is detected in the food supply and in the bodies of most Americans. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified it as a probable human carcinogen.
Tens of thousands of people have sued Bayer-Monsanto, alleging their cancer diagnoses are linked to Roundup exposure – lawsuits that the recent ruling now puts in jeopardy.
Dangerous precedent
The ruling also creates a dangerous precedent that could extend beyond pesticides, inviting other industries to argue that compliance with often weak and outdated federal regulations should shield them from stronger state consumer protection laws and civil liability, he said.
Cook said it’s now up to Congress to rein in pesticide manufacturers and reform major pesticide laws to protect people before they’re harmed.
States can also help by banning the most harmful pesticides, such as paraquat, he said. In May, Vermont in May became the first state to prohibit the use of paraquat, which is linked to greater risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
