Supreme Court Seeks Input From Federal Government on Roundup Lawsuits
Editors carefully fact-check all Drugwatch.com content for accuracy and quality.
Drugwatch.com has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.
We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.
Both Bayer and the people who have filed Roundup lawsuits will have to wait a little longer to find out if the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on a key case involving the weed killer.
On Monday, the Court invited the Solicitor General to provide the United States’ view on a Roundup case over claims that the weed killer is tied to the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer, which acquired Roundup manufacturer Monsanto in 2018, filed a petition in April for the Supreme Court to review a Roundup lawsuit.
The Solicitor General is one of the highest-ranking officials in the U.S. Department of Justice. This move invites the federal government to provide feedback or direction on how it thinks the Court should move forward with the Roundup petition.
Bayer has pushed for the Supreme Court to weigh in on these lawsuits, which connect Roundup exposure to cancer. Cases are widespread, and Bayer has suffered several key defeats when individual cases have gone to trial.
The company is hopeful that a favorable Supreme Court ruling could end the litigation and views the Court looking to the Solicitor General as a positive development.
“We see this request as an encouraging step,” Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said in a statement.
With the request sent to the Solicitor General, it is now unclear when the Supreme Court may decide whether or not to hear a Roundup case. Bayer says it is hopeful that a decision could come within the next year.
Federal Preemption Key Issue in Roundup Lawsuits
The issue at the heart of Bayer’s petition to the Supreme Court is whether or not the claims Roundup lawsuits rely on can be overruled by a federal statute.
The statute in question is called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements beyond federal law for products like pesticides.
Roundup lawsuits are based on claims that Monsanto failed to warn its customers of a cancer risk tied to its product. Bayer has argued that since the Environmental Protection Agency approved the Roundup label without a cancer warning, the lawsuits should not be able to move forward.
Lower courts have been divided on this issue. The 9th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals have sided with plaintiffs, while the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Bayer.
The company argues that a Supreme Court decision is needed to provide clarity.
