Why SCOTUS Sided With Monsanto on Roundup

Muhammad Yunus, Pexels

The Supreme Court has handed a major win to Monsanto in a long fight over its popular weedkiller, Roundup. In a 7-2 ruling, the justices decided that federal law blocks state lawsuits demanding a cancer warning on the product’s label. The decision could end thousands of similar claims filed across the country.

The case is called Monsanto Company v. Durnell, and the Court released its opinion on June 25, 2026. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. At the heart of the case is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup that farmers spray on crops all across the nation.

What the Court Decided

The justices ruled that a federal pesticide law controls what must appear on a Roundup label. Under that law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decides whether a warning is required, not state juries. Because the EPA has not called for a cancer warning, states cannot force the company to add one.

Kavanaugh explained that a federal pesticide law called FIFRA settles the matter once and for all. The law preempts, or overrides, any state rule that adds to or differs from the federal label.

The Court also stressed that the EPA has studied glyphosate many times over the years. Each time, the agency concluded the chemical is not likely to cause cancer in humans, a finding shared by regulators in Europe, Canada, Japan, and other nations.

The Court reversed and remanded the case by that 7-2 vote, sending it back down to the lower courts. Justice Clarence Thomas added a concurring opinion explaining his own reasoning. The ruling gives Monsanto and its parent company, Bayer, a powerful shield against a flood of cancer lawsuits.

How the Case Started

The lawsuit was filed by John Durnell, a resident of St. Louis, Missouri. He claimed that using Roundup for more than two decades caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. A Missouri jury agreed with him and awarded $1.25 million in damages.

A state appeals court upheld that award before the case reached Washington. The Supreme Court was the first federal court to weigh in on the dispute. Its decision threw out the verdict and reversed the lower courts.

During oral arguments, Monsanto and the Justice Department pointed to a basic rule of our system: federal law usually trumps state law. Industry groups backed that view because companies cannot easily follow 50 different rules in 50 different states.

The decision is also a victory for the Trump administration, which urged the Court to side with the company. President Trump has called glyphosate important to the nation’s farms and food security. The ruling supports that goal while leaving the EPA in charge of careful safety reviews.

Why the Justices Ruled the Way They Did

It is important to understand what this case was, and what it was not. The justices were not asked to decide whether Roundup is safe or whether glyphosate causes cancer. They were asked a narrow legal question: when the EPA approves a label, can a single state jury demand a different one?

The Court’s answer rested on the text of the law that Congress wrote, not on how the justices feel about the product. FIFRA plainly says states cannot add labeling rules that differ from the federal ones. Because federal law required Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label, the justices held that a state jury could not punish the company for obeying it.

That is why the ruling crossed the usual party lines, with both liberal and conservative justices joining the majority. It also explains why the dissent paired liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, two justices who often favor letting state lawsuits move forward.

None of this means the justices stand against everyday people or the Make America Healthy Again movement. In fact, one of them used this case to warn that the deeper problem is how much power Washington has handed to the EPA.

Thomas Warns the EPA Holds Too Much Power

Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority in full, agreeing that the law required this result. Yet he wrote separately to make a sharper point: in his view, the real problem is the law itself. FIFRA, he argued, has handed the EPA far more power than the Constitution ever allows.

Thomas warned that Congress gave the agency the authority to write binding rules and even punish violations with heavy fines or prison time. That kind of lawmaking power, he said, belongs to Congress alone and cannot be handed off to an unelected agency. He also questioned whether the law stretches the Commerce Clause far beyond its proper limits, noting that it reaches even how a person uses a product bought at a local store in his own backyard.

To many conservatives, that is the heart of the matter. State and local authority still matters, and arguably should carry far more weight than it does today. But because Congress handed so much control to the EPA, the justices’ hands were tied. They could only apply the law as written, even if that law gives one federal agency more say over farms, families, and backyards than it ever should have.

What This Means Going Forward

The Court was clear about where the real remedy lies. If Americans believe a pesticide is unsafe, they can press the EPA to change the label or ask Congress to amend the law. The justices did not slam the door on safety; they pointed to the branches the Constitution charges with setting policy.

This is why many reformers, including MAHA leaders, are now turning their attention to Congress. For now, Bayer plans to move ahead with a proposed settlement to resolve many of the remaining claims. But the debate over glyphosate has shifted from the courtroom to the halls of Congress, and how lawmakers respond will help shape America’s food supply for years to come.

As believers, we are called to pray for our leaders and our nation. Pray for wisdom for those making these decisions, and for safety and dignity for all people affected by them.

That’s where we come in.

Prayer is at the heart of how Million Voices connects faith with civic life. Our Prayer Guide: Pray for Our Government Officials By Name is a free resource designed to help individuals, families, and small groups lift up the men and women who serve in public office—across every level of government and regardless of party.

Rooted in the scriptural call to pray “for kings and all those in authority” (1 Timothy 2:1–2), the guide offers a thoughtful framework for interceding on behalf of our leaders: for wisdom in their decisions, integrity in their conduct, protection for them and their families, and a heart for serving the common good.

Whether you’re looking to deepen your personal prayer life or to gather others in praying for our nation, this guide is a meaningful place to start. Download it here: https://millionvoices.org/mv-prayer-guide-pray-for-government-officials/

We also offer an opportunity to connect faith with action. Through our Write Now Campaign, volunteers send letters to low-propensity voters in key areas, helping inspire them to engage and make their voices heard.

Ready to take the next step? Learn more or sign up to get involved: https://millionvoices.org/volunteer/

You can also be notified when Candidate Fact Sheets become available in areas you care about: https://millionvoices.org/cfs-notify/