The US Supreme Court held oral arguments on April 27, 2026, in the Durnell v. Bayer glyphosate weedkiller case, part of thousands of lawsuits alleging cancer risks from Roundup. Justices appeared divided on federal preemption of state warning claims. This follows Bayer's February 2026 multi-billion-dollar settlement for many similar cases.
Part of the 'Bayer US Glyphosate Litigation' series.
In Washington, Bayer's lawyer Paul Clement argued that federal law, via EPA approvals, preempts state failure-to-warn claims. "A jury in Missouri prescribed a cancer warning that the EPA does not require," he said, warning of crushing liability and harm to farmers.
The nine justices showed mixed reactions: Brett Kavanaugh advocated uniform national warnings, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned states' ability to highlight emerging risks, and Neil Gorsuch probed the necessity of direct conflict with federal law. The Trump administration supports Bayer's position.
The Durnell case stems from a October 2023 St. Louis jury award for inadequate cancer warnings on Roundup, containing glyphosate. Bayer hopes for a ruling affirming preemption, providing 'necessary regulatory clarity' amid thousands of pending suits.
This hearing is unaffected by Bayer's earlier $7.25 billion settlement (announced February 2026) resolving many current and future claims, as it pertains to appeals like Durnell not covered by that deal.
