Roundup Litigation Update, Mid-2026

No mass tort saw its landscape change more dramatically in the first half of 2026 than the Roundup litigation. In the span of five months, Bayer filed the largest proposed settlement in the litigation's history, the U.S. Supreme Court heard and decided the preemption question the company had chased for years, and Congress and multiple statehouses fought over pesticide liability shields. Here is where things stand at mid-year, along with what the second half is likely to bring.

Monsanto v. Durnell: the ruling Bayer wanted

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court held 7-2 in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims premised on the theory that Roundup's label should have carried a cancer warning. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. He reasoned that because EPA has repeatedly concluded glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic and has never required a cancer warning, a state-law duty to add one would impose a labeling requirement "in addition to or different from" federal requirements. Justice Jackson dissented, and in a notable cross-ideological pairing, Justice Gorsuch joined her, as NPR reported. The dissent argued that the majority misread FIFRA's requirements and left the plaintiff without a remedy.

‍

The practical stakes are enormous. John Durnell, a St. Louis man who sprayed Roundup for his neighborhood association for two decades before developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, had won $1.25 million at trial. The Court's ruling now reverses that judgment. More broadly, as one environmental law scholar wrote in The Conversation, the decision effectively blocks the failure-to-warn theory that has driven tens of thousands of pending Roundup claims, and it complicates similar claims against other pesticide makers. Stanford's Robert Rabin made a similar point: the ruling dispatches not just Durnell's suit but many thousands of similar claims in other state courts.

‍

Critically, though, Durnell is not a total shield. Defense-side analyses agree that the holding is confined to label-based warning claims. As Crowell & Moring's client alert notes, design defect, manufacturing defect, promotional-conduct claims, and claims involving risks EPA never affirmatively considered may remain viable. The strength of a preemption defense will also turn on the depth of EPA's review of the specific risk at issue. Bergeson & Campbell's analysis calls it the Court's most significant FIFRA preemption ruling since Bates v. Dow Agrosciences (2005), and the fight over its outer limits will define the next phase of the litigation. Expect immediate skirmishes over whether plaintiffs' non-warning theories are genuinely independent or, as Bayer will argue, repackaged label claims.

The $7.25 billion proposed settlement

The Court's ruling landed on top of the other defining event of the year. On February 17, 2026, Bayer announced a proposed nationwide settlement worth up to $7.25 billion, filed as a class settlement in Missouri state court in St. Louis and designed to resolve both current claims and future claims from Roundup users diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Reuters reported. The key features include payments stretched over as long as 21 years, eligibility tied to exposure and diagnosis before the announcement date with a separate mechanism for future claims, and walk-away rights for Bayer if participation falls short. Announcing the deal, Bayer disclosed it was raising litigation provisions from €7.8 billion to €11.8 billion and expected roughly €5 billion in litigation-related payouts in 2026. Those figures come on top of the more than $10 billion the company has already spent resolving Roundup claims since acquiring Monsanto in 2018.

‍

The settlement received preliminary approval in the St. Louis court this spring, with an opt-out window and a final approval decision expected over the summer, per press reports. The open question is how Durnell reshapes the calculus on both sides. Claimants whose cases rested primarily on failure-to-warn now face a drastically weakened litigation alternative, which strengthens Bayer's hand on participation. At the same time, objectors will argue the deal was priced in a pre-Durnell world, and scholars have noted the settlement itself may be reexamined in light of the ruling. Watch the final approval proceedings closely.

The scoreboard Bayer was trying to escape

The settlement and the Supreme Court push are best understood against the trial record. In March 2025, a Cobb County, Georgia jury awarded roughly $2.1 billion to John Barnes, who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after two decades of Roundup use. The award consisted of $65 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages, making it one of the largest verdicts in the litigation's history. It followed the pattern set by the January 2024 Philadelphia McKivison verdict of $2.25 billion, which was later reduced to $400 million, and a string of other nine-figure awards, interspersed with a substantial number of defense verdicts. By early 2026, roughly 65,000 claims remained pending nationwide. The federal MDL before Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California held around 4,000 of them, and the rest were concentrated in state courts in Missouri, Pennsylvania, California, and elsewhere. Bayer is expected to argue at upcoming MDL status conferences that Durnell leaves little of the federal docket standing. Plaintiffs' leadership, who appeared as amici at the Supreme Court, vigorously dispute that characterization.

The legislative and political front

The preemption fight has been running on a parallel legislative track. In April, the U.S. House voted 280-142 to strip a pesticide liability shield out of the 2026 Farm Bill before passing the underlying legislation. The vote came days after protesters rallied outside the Supreme Court during the Durnell argument. In the states, Bayer-backed bills providing that an EPA-approved label is a complete defense to failure-to-warn claims have continued to advance. The National Agricultural Law Center's 2026 tracker catalogs the wave of pesticide liability limitation bills introduced this session, building on the first such laws enacted in Georgia and North Dakota in 2025. In February, President Trump signed an executive order promoting domestic glyphosate production as a national-security matter, as Food Safety Magazine noted. The same administration's Solicitor General argued in support of Monsanto at the Court. After Durnell, much of this activity becomes belt-and-suspenders protection for defendants. Even so, a federal "No Immunity for Glyphosate" bill backed by Senate Democrats signals that Congress could yet revisit FIFRA's preemption language.

The science remains contested

The underlying scientific dispute has not gone anywhere. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015, while EPA has repeatedly reached the opposite conclusion. The Durnell majority itself recounted that divergence. Two wrinkles from 2026 are worth flagging. First, as Food Safety Magazine reported, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted a 2000 paper on glyphosate safety that had been cited in regulatory assessments for a quarter century. The retraction echoes The Lancet's talc retraction weeks later, and it is a reminder that the provenance of decades-old safety literature is under new scrutiny. Second, because Durnell ties preemption to EPA's assessment of the data, the agency's ongoing glyphosate registration review takes on outsized litigation significance. That review was restarted after the Ninth Circuit vacated EPA's 2020 human-health determination, and if the agency's position ever shifts, the preemption analysis could shift with it.

What to watch in the second half of 2026

Three storylines deserve attention. First, watch the fate of the $7.25 billion settlement, including final approval, opt-out rates, and whether Durnell prompts renegotiation or objections that stick. Second, watch the scope battles. Motions across the MDL and state dockets will test which design-defect and non-label theories survive preemption, and the answers will determine whether the litigation ends or merely mutates. Third, watch the political response. State shield laws, the federal glyphosate immunity fight, and EPA's registration review all feed directly into the legal standard the Supreme Court has announced. Bayer sought closure for seven years, and 2026 is the year it may finally get it, though on terms still being written.

‍