Home / Crime and Justice / Unusual Alliance: Justices Clash in Bayer Ruling
Unusual Alliance: Justices Clash in Bayer Ruling
25 Jun
Summary
- Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Bayer is shielded from cancer lawsuits.
- Justices Jackson and Gorsuch dissented from the majority opinion.
- The ruling cited federal law preempting state labeling requirements.
In a significant 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court has protected Bayer from a wave of lawsuits alleging its weedkiller, Roundup, causes cancer. The ruling, delivered on Thursday, determined that the original maker, Monsanto, cannot face lawsuits in state courts. This is because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not officially stated that glyphosate, a key ingredient in Roundup, is carcinogenic.
The case involved a plaintiff who claimed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that state tort claims requiring a different warning than the EPA-approved label are expressly preempted by federal law under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
In a notable display of judicial alignment, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissent, joined by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. They argued that the court's majority misunderstood FIFRA and its preemption scope, effectively closing the courthouse doors to individuals like the plaintiff who suffered harm.
This decision could impact thousands of similar lawsuits, setting a precedent for how such claims are handled under federal regulatory law versus state tort law. The court's unusual split highlights ongoing debates about corporate liability and consumer protection.
