U.S. Supreme Court to Review Durnell Case in Roundup™ Litigation

28 January 2026, Leverkusen: Bayer has welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to review the Durnell case related to Roundup™ litigation. The company expects a ruling on the merits during the Court’s 2026 term, which is scheduled to conclude in June.

Monsanto, a Bayer subsidiary, filed a petition for certiorari in April 2025, seeking Supreme Court intervention to address differing interpretations among federal circuit courts on the issue of federal preemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This legal question remains central to ongoing Roundup™ litigation across the United States.

According to the company, a favorable ruling could help bring greater clarity to the application of federal and state laws governing pesticide labeling. Bayer has stated that resolving the circuit split forms an important part of its broader, multi-pronged strategy to contain Roundup™-related litigation.

Commenting on the development, Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case represents a positive step toward regulatory certainty for U.S. farmers and manufacturers. He reiterated the company’s position that entities complying with federally approved labeling requirements should not face liability under differing state-level standards. Bayer has consistently maintained that leading regulatory authorities worldwide, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have concluded that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely when applied as directed.

Prior to agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court sought the views of the U.S. Solicitor General. In a brief submitted in December 2025, Solicitor General John Sauer supported Supreme Court review, stating that the Durnell ruling raises concerns about jury verdicts overriding expert scientific determinations made by the EPA. The brief noted that the EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans and has approved Roundup™ labels without cancer warnings.

The Solicitor General also warned that allowing state-level claims to proceed could result in inconsistent labeling standards across the country, citing prior Supreme Court guidance cautioning against subjecting manufacturers to multiple and conflicting regulatory regimes.

In its petition, Monsanto pointed to contrasting rulings among federal courts. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in the Schaffner case, unanimously held that FIFRA expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims similar to those raised in Durnell. In contrast, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, along with Missouri’s intermediate appellate court, have reached different conclusions, creating legal uncertainty that the company argues requires resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Durnell case was tried in October 2023 in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis. The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff on one of three claims, awarding USD 1.25 million in damages related to failure-to-warn allegations, while rejecting other claims and declining to award punitive damages. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in February 2025. After the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the case in April 2025, Monsanto filed its petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, clearing the way for federal review.

Also Read: ISARC Director Awarded with Uttar Pradesh’s Highest Civilian Award

Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com