Washington: The long-running legal fight over the safety of the weedkiller Roundup reached a new turning point on Tuesday, as the Trump administration formally backed Bayer AG’s request for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and sharply restrict thousands of lawsuits filed against the company across the country. The move signals a major shift in federal involvement and could have sweeping consequences for corporate liability, consumer protection, and the future of pesticide regulation in the United States.
In a brief submitted by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the administration urged the Supreme Court to hear Bayer’s appeal in a case from Missouri, where a jury had awarded $1.25 million to a man who claimed Roundup caused his cancer. Bayer argues that federal law governing pesticides should override state-level lawsuits, many of which have resulted in multimillion-dollar verdicts against the company.
The Solicitor General’s filing asserted that such lawsuits threaten to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority and create conflicting warning standards across states. The government emphasized that the EPA has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate the active ingredient in Roundup is “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans, reinforcing Bayer’s argument for federal pre-emption.
Bayer inherited Roundup and its mounting legal troubles when it purchased Monsanto in 2018. Since then, the company has faced more than 67,000 claims from plaintiffs alleging that Roundup exposure caused cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Although Bayer has settled many cases, litigation continues in state and federal courts, and new lawsuits are still being filed.
While the company has won several recent cases, jury verdicts have varied widely, creating uncertainty for both the company and the broader agrochemical sector. A landmark case in Georgia, for instance, resulted in a US$2.1 billion verdict before being settled.
The Trump administration’s backing provides substantial political and legal support for Bayer, potentially increasing the likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept the case.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations have welcomed the government’s decision, arguing that inconsistent state-level liability exposes manufacturers to unpredictable legal burdens even when their products comply with federal regulations.
Consumer safety advocates, however, warn that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Bayer could weaken the ability of individuals to sue chemical manufacturers over harmful products. Environmental groups have long argued that federal pesticide guidelines do not go far enough and that litigation remains a crucial tool for accountability.
Facing mounting financial pressure, Bayer has in recent years hinted at the possibility of withdrawing Roundup from the U.S. consumer market or replacing glyphosate with alternative ingredients. The company has already spent billions in settlements and continues to allocate resources to defend new lawsuits.
A favorable Supreme Court ruling would significantly ease this burden, potentially shielding Bayer from thousands of future claims and reducing the financial volatility that has plagued the company since the Monsanto acquisition.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, its decision could redefine the balance between federal regulatory authority and state consumer protections. A ruling supporting Bayer could sharply limit the future of pesticide-related litigation nationwide, insulating manufacturers from lawsuits even when scientific debates continue.
If the Court declines to take the case or rules against Bayer, the company will remain exposed to ongoing and future claims prolonging one of the most expensive legal battles in U.S. corporate history.
For now, the legal and regulatory worlds are watching closely. The case is no longer only about Roundup it has become a test of how far federal regulation shields corporations from state-level accountability, and what it means for consumer protection in America.