Missouri Roundup Cancer Lawsuits After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Ruling: What Survives and What to Do Now
If you used Roundup for years and then heard the words “non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma” from an oncologist, you already know what fear feels like. Now you are hearing that the United States Supreme Court just ruled in favor of Monsanto — and the first question racing through your mind is whether your case, or the case you were about to file, is dead. We are going to answer that question directly, because you deserve the truth and you deserve it now: your case is not automatically over. The ruling is a serious legal setback for one specific legal theory, but it is not the end of every Roundup cancer claim, and it is not the end of the road for every person who sprayed that weedkiller and later developed a blood cancer. What it does is change the map. Some roads are closed. Others are still open but harder to travel. A $7.25 billion class settlement is sitting in a Missouri state court right now, waiting for approval, and the decision you make about whether to participate in it — or pursue an individual case on the legal theories that survived — may be the most important decision in your case. We are Attorney911, and this page is built to give you the straight, lawyer-level analysis of what the Supreme Court actually ruled, which claims may still have life, what the settlement means for you, and what evidence you need to preserve before it disappears. This is legal information, not legal advice, and contacting us is free and confidential. Call 1-888-ATTY-911, any hour, any day.
The Ruling in Plain English: What the Supreme Court Actually Decided
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell that a federal law called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — FIFRA — blocks state-court lawsuits that claim Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the Roundup label. The reasoning is specific and understanding it is the first step in understanding what is left of your case.
FIFRA was enacted by Congress in 1947. It creates a uniform, national system for registering pesticides and approving the labels that go on them. Under FIFRA, a pesticide manufacturer must register its product with the Environmental Protection Agency and use an EPA-approved label. The manufacturer cannot unilaterally change that label to add warnings the EPA did not approve or require — unless the EPA approves or requires a different label. The EPA has evaluated glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, repeatedly over decades and has concluded it is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Because of that determination, the EPA has never required a cancer warning on Roundup’s label.
The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case was a Missouri gardener who used Roundup for more than 20 years and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He sued Monsanto in Missouri state court and won a $1.25 million verdict in 2023 — but the jury rejected every claim except one: that Monsanto failed to warn consumers about Roundup’s alleged cancer risk. That single surviving claim, the failure-to-warn theory, was the one the Supreme Court just struck down. The Court’s majority — led by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Thomas — held that FIFRA’s federal labeling regime preempts state-law claims that would require Monsanto to use a label different from the one the EPA approved. In other words: if the EPA says no cancer warning is needed, a state court cannot tell Monsanto it should have put one on anyway.
Justice Jackson and Justice Gorsuch dissented.
The Missouri Court of Appeals had previously rejected Monsanto’s FIFRA preemption defense, and the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review that decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed — meaning the Missouri appellate ruling is vacated and the $1.25 million verdict, which rested entirely on the now-preempted failure-to-warn theory, is effectively overturned.
“The U.S. Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation,” Bayer said in a statement. “It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles.”
That is the company’s words. The reality for a cancer patient is more complicated — and the honest analysis requires looking at what the ruling did NOT decide.
The Theory That Won $1.25 Million — and Why It Is Now Gone
The failure-to-warn theory was the backbone of the Roundup mass tort. More than 100,000 people across the country filed lawsuits against Monsanto alleging that glyphosate caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and the overwhelming majority of those claims were built on the argument that Monsanto should have warned consumers about the cancer risk on the product label. That theory is now foreclosed.
Here is why, in plain language: FIFRA says a pesticide manufacturer must use the label the EPA approved. The EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning. Monsanto argued — and the Supreme Court agreed — that it could not legally put a cancer warning on the label without EPA approval, and that a state-law jury verdict finding Monsanto liable for not warning is therefore preempted by federal law. The state duty to warn and the federal duty to use the EPA-approved label cannot coexist; the federal law wins.
This means that if your entire case rests on “Monsanto should have warned me on the label,” the Supreme Court has closed that door. But the Court’s ruling is specific to labeling claims. It addresses the adequacy of the EPA-approved label. It does not address every theory of liability that a Roundup plaintiff might pursue — and that distinction is where the surviving claims live.
Claims That May Survive the Preemption Ruling
This is the section that most other resources will not give you, because it requires looking past the headline and reading what the Supreme Court did not decide. The ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell addressed failure-to-warn claims — claims premised on the adequacy of the EPA-approved label. Several other product-liability theories are not directly premised on label adequacy and may not be reached by FIFRA’s labeling-specific preemption. These theories are untested in the post-ruling landscape, and they face formidable defense arguments, but they represent the path forward for individual litigation.
Design defect. A design-defect claim argues that Roundup is unreasonably dangerous by design because glyphosate is carcinogenic — relying on the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s 2015 classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” This theory does not depend on what the label says. It asks whether the product itself, as designed, is unreasonably dangerous. FIFRA’s preemption provisions are labeling-specific; they may not reach a claim that challenges the product’s formulation rather than its label. The defense response will be formidable: if the EPA determined glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic,” how can a jury find the design defective? That is the fight — and it is a fight that has not been decided by the Supreme Court.
Negligent design and testing. This theory alleges that Monsanto failed to adequately test glyphosate for carcinogenicity before bringing it to market and failed to design a safer formulation despite awareness of the scientific debate about its safety. This is about the company’s conduct in developing and testing the product, not about what the label says. The defense will argue that Monsanto complied with EPA registration requirements and that the EPA’s safety determination validates the testing program.
Breach of implied warranty. A warranty claim argues that Roundup was not fit for its ordinary, intended use because it caused cancer. Warranty claims may have a different preemption analysis than failure-to-warn labeling claims, because they challenge the product’s fitness rather than the label’s adequacy.
Strict product liability. A strict-liability claim argues that Roundup caused harm when used as intended and that the product was defective. If the defect theory is not predicated on the adequacy of the EPA-approved label — if it points to the formulation, the design, or the manufacturing process — it may survive preemption.
We need to be honest about what we do not know: these theories have not been tested in the post-Durnell landscape. No court has yet ruled on whether FIFRA preemption extends to design-defect or warranty claims in the Roundup context. The defense will argue that the EPA’s safety determination should be treated as dispositive of whether the product is defective — and that argument is strong. But it has not been decided, and until it is, these theories remain potentially viable paths for individual litigation. If you want to understand how we approach toxic tort claims involving chemical exposure and cancer, that page walks through our methodology.
The Science Conflict at the Heart of Every Roundup Case
Every surviving Roundup claim — whether design defect, negligent testing, or warranty — runs straight into the same scientific conflict that fueled the failure-to-warn litigation. Understanding this conflict is essential because it is the battlefield on which every surviving theory will be fought.
Two respected scientific bodies reached opposite conclusions about whether glyphosate causes cancer:
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015. This classification was based on a working group’s review of scientific evidence, and it was the spark that ignited the tidal wave of Roundup litigation.
The EPA, however, conducted its own examinations of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential and found the “strongest support” for classifying the chemical as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Based on its analyses, the EPA in 2019 and 2020 concluded that a cancer warning for glyphosate was not needed, and it has continued to approve labels of glyphosate-based pesticide products that do not contain cancer warnings.
This conflict is not a matter of one side being right and the other being wrong in a way a lawyer can simply assert. It is a genuine scientific disagreement between two authoritative bodies using different methodologies and evaluating different evidence. For a plaintiff, the IARC classification is the foundation of general causation — the argument that glyphosate can cause cancer. For the defense, the EPA’s determination is the foundation of their argument that the product is safe when used as directed and that no warning is needed.
In the post-Durnell landscape, this conflict becomes even more critical. The failure-to-warn theory is gone, but the scientific conflict remains. For surviving theories — design defect, negligent testing, warranty — the plaintiff’s expert witnesses must bridge the IARC-versus-EPA gap. A toxicologist or epidemiologist must explain why the IARC classification is the more reliable scientific assessment, why the EPA’s methodology may have been less protective, and why the plaintiff’s specific cancer was caused by glyphosate exposure. The defense will bring its own experts to argue the opposite. This expert battle is the heart of every surviving Roundup case.
FIFRA: The Federal Law That Changed Everything
To understand why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did — and to understand the limits of that ruling — you need to understand the federal regulatory framework that governs pesticides in this country.
FIFRA, enacted by Congress in 1947, establishes the federal framework for pesticide registration, labeling, and sale. It requires manufacturers to register their products with the EPA before they can be sold. It requires manufacturers to use EPA-approved labels. And it creates a uniform, national labeling standard — the core of the preemption argument.
The logic of the Supreme Court’s ruling flows directly from this structure: if FIFRA creates a national labeling standard, and if the EPA has determined that no cancer warning is needed, then allowing individual state courts to impose different labeling requirements through tort law would undermine the federal framework. The federal law says use this label; the state law says you should have used a different label; the two cannot coexist; the federal law prevails.
But FIFRA’s preemption provisions are labeling-specific. They address what the label must say. They do not directly address whether the product’s design is defective, whether the manufacturer conducted adequate testing, or whether the product is fit for its intended use. This is the seam that surviving theories exploit — and it is a seam the Supreme Court did not close.
The Trump administration backed Monsanto’s preemption argument, filing a brief that argued federal law gives the EPA the responsibility to determine whether pesticide warnings are needed. President Trump also signed an executive order aimed at boosting the production of glyphosate-based herbicides. This political and regulatory context reinforced the federal policy position that underpins the preemption holding — and it signals that the EPA’s safety determination is unlikely to change in the near term.
Monsanto and Bayer: The Corporate Structure Behind Roundup
The company that makes Roundup is not a simple defendant. Understanding the corporate structure matters because it affects who you sue, who pays, and how the defense is organized.
Monsanto Company developed and sold Roundup for decades. It registered the product with the EPA, designed the label, and faced the tidal wave of litigation — more than 100,000 plaintiffs — that began after the IARC’s 2015 classification. In 2018, Bayer AG, a German pharmaceutical and agricultural conglomerate, acquired Monsanto in a deal that also brought Bayer all of Monsanto’s litigation exposure. Since the acquisition, Bayer has assumed litigation responsibility for the Roundup cases, and the caption defendant in most lawsuits remains “Monsanto Company” even though the corporate parent and the funding source behind the defense is Bayer.
Bayer reports that it no longer sells glyphosate-based Roundup products for the residential consumer market in the United States, though it continues to offer other versions of the herbicide through retailers such as Home Depot and Lowe’s. This means the specific product at issue in most cancer lawsuits — glyphosate-based Roundup — is being phased out of the consumer market, but the litigation from past exposure continues, and the proposed $7.25 billion class settlement is designed to resolve both current and future claims.
The corporate structure creates a situation where the entity that designed the product, the entity that registered it with the EPA, and the entity that is funding the litigation defense are all different layers of the same corporate family. For a plaintiff, this means the deep pocket is Bayer AG — a global pharmaceutical giant with the resources to fund a decades-long litigation defense and a multi-billion-dollar settlement program. It also means the defense strategy is being coordinated at the highest corporate level, not by a single product division.
Retail distributors named in the article — Home Depot, Lowe’s — are potential defendants under product-distribution-chain strict-liability theory, but they are typically not the primary targets in Roundup mass tort litigation. The real defendant is the manufacturer and its corporate parent.
The $7.25 Billion Class Settlement: What It Means for You
Bayer has proposed a $7.25 billion class settlement to resolve current and future Roundup claims, and that settlement is now before a Missouri state court for approval. If the plan gets approved, Monsanto would make annual payments for up to 21 years.
This is one of the most important pieces of information on this page, and we want to be precise about what it means and what it does not mean.
The settlement is proposed, not approved. It is pending in Missouri state court — the same state where the Durnell case originated and where Missouri’s court system has historically been an accessible forum for product-liability plaintiffs. The court must review the settlement terms, consider objections, and decide whether the arrangement is fair to class members before it can take effect.
If approved, the settlement would create a structured payment system. Annual payments over up to 21 years would be made to resolve both current claims (people who have already filed lawsuits or have claims ready to file) and future claims (people who used Roundup and may develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the future). Individual recovery amounts would vary based on exposure duration, cancer severity, NHL subtype, and other claim characteristics.
For any individual claimant, the decision about whether to participate in the class settlement or opt out and pursue individual litigation is one of the most consequential choices in the case. This decision requires evaluating several factors:
The strength of your individual case. If you have strong exposure documentation (detailed purchase records, employment history showing years of Roundup use), a clear NHL diagnosis with a pathology report, and a treating oncologist who can support causation, individual litigation on surviving theories may carry higher theoretical value than a class settlement payment.
The terms of the settlement. Until the court approves the settlement and its specific terms are public, the exact payment structure, eligibility criteria, and release provisions are not fully known. You cannot evaluate whether to participate until you know what participation pays and what rights you give up.
The 21-year payment structure. A settlement that pays over 21 years means the money arrives over time, not in a lump sum. For a cancer patient facing treatment costs now, the timing of payments matters as much as the total amount.
The diminished litigation leverage created by the Supreme Court ruling. Before Durnell, plaintiffs had the failure-to-warn theory — a powerful, jury-tested claim that produced significant verdicts. With that theory now preempted, the leverage that drove settlement value has shifted. Bayer’s negotiating position is stronger, and the settlement may reflect that shift. This is the honest reality: the ruling strengthened Bayer’s hand.
If the class settlement is approved, individual recoveries would likely range from modest five-figure sums to low six-figures depending on the claim profile. Individual litigation on surviving theories carries higher theoretical value but faces significant legal uncertainty and defense arguments anchored to the EPA’s safety determination.
What Your Case May Be Worth Now
We need to be honest about case value, because the Supreme Court ruling has fundamentally changed the arithmetic.
Before the ruling, the failure-to-warn theory was the engine of Roundup case value. It was the theory that won the $1.25 million verdict in the Durnell case. It was the theory that produced significant verdicts and settlements across the country. That engine is now gone.
Post-ruling, case value depends on three uncertain variables:
First, the approval and terms of the proposed $7.25 billion class settlement in Missouri state court. If the settlement is approved, individual recoveries would likely range from modest five-figure sums to low six-figures depending on claim profile — exposure duration, NHL subtype and severity, and causation strength.
Second, the viability of non-preempted theories — design defect, negligent testing, breach of warranty. These theories have not been tested post-ruling. If they survive preemption challenges, individual litigation could carry higher theoretical value. But they face formidable defense arguments, and the EPA’s safety determination is a powerful defense anchor.
Third, individual plaintiff characteristics — how long you used Roundup, how intensively you were exposed, your NHL subtype and treatment course, your age and earning capacity, and the strength of your specific causation evidence.
The $1.25 million verdict obtained in the Durnell case consisted of compensatory damages on the now-preempted failure-to-warn theory and is effectively reversed. We state this clearly: that verdict did not survive. Presenting it as a standing result would be misleading.
For a rough framework: if the class settlement is approved and you participate, your recovery would likely fall in a modest range — potentially five figures to the low six figures depending on your claim characteristics. If you pursue individual litigation on surviving theories, the theoretical ceiling is higher, but so is the risk — the legal theories are untested, the defense is anchored to the EPA’s determination, and the path is longer and harder.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. No lawyer can promise you a specific dollar recovery in this changed landscape. What we can do is give you an honest, individualized assessment based on your specific facts, your exposure history, your medical records, and the current state of the law.
For a deeper look at how case value is calculated, Ralph Manginello breaks down what your case is worth in a video that walks through the methodology.
The Medicine: Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a blood cancer that originates in the lymphatic system — the network of tissues and organs that helps the body fight infection. It is the cancer at the center of every Roundup lawsuit, and understanding it is essential to understanding both the stakes and the proof problems in these cases.
NHL is not a single disease. It is a group of more than 70 subtypes of lymphoma, each with its own biology, prognosis, and treatment protocol. Some subtypes are aggressive and require immediate, intensive treatment. Others are indolent — slow-growing and sometimes manageable for years. The specific subtype you were diagnosed with matters for your medical treatment and for your legal case, because different subtypes have different background rates in the general population, which affects the causation analysis.
Treatment for NHL typically involves chemotherapy, radiation therapy, immunotherapy, and in some cases stem cell transplants. The medical costs are substantial — induction chemotherapy alone can run into six figures, and a stem cell transplant can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Beyond the acute treatment phase, many NHL survivors require ongoing monitoring for years, sometimes for life, because lymphoma can recur.
The non-economic damages are equally significant. A cancer diagnosis brings fear, pain, physical suffering from treatment side effects, emotional distress, loss of quality of life, and the psychological burden of living with a disease that may return. For families, there is the toll of watching a loved one go through treatment, the financial stress of medical bills and lost wages, and in the worst cases, the grief of losing someone to the disease.
For cases where NHL has caused death, the wrongful death claim is a separate cause of action with its own elements, beneficiaries, and damage categories under Missouri law.
The proof problem the defense exploits. NHL has multiple known risk factors and causes beyond glyphosate exposure. It occurs in people with no known chemical exposure. The defense will argue that your NHL was idiopathic — meaning it arose spontaneously, without an identifiable cause — or that it was caused by something other than Roundup. To counter this, your case needs a treating oncologist or a retained hematology expert who can testify that your specific NHL is consistent with glyphosate exposure, that your exposure duration and intensity were sufficient to be a causative factor, and that other potential causes have been ruled out or are less likely. This is specific causation testimony, and it is the bridge between the IARC’s general-causation classification and your individual diagnosis.
Evidence You Need to Preserve — and How Fast It Disappears
The evidence in a Roundup cancer case is on a clock, and the clock is already running. Every day you wait, proof that could support your claim is degrading, being purged, or disappearing entirely. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally die.
Roundup product labels and packaging from your period of use. These prove what warnings were present when you were exposed and whether the label matched the EPA-approved version. Bayer reports it no longer sells glyphosate-based Roundup for the consumer market, which means older packaging and formulations become harder to source over time. If you still have old Roundup containers, bottles, or packaging — keep them. Photograph them. Do not discard them. Perishability: moderate — the product is no longer sold, so what exists is what exists, and it only gets scarcer.
Purchase receipts, usage logs, employment records, and witness statements documenting your exposure. These prove how long you used Roundup and how intensively you were exposed — the foundation of specific causation. Retail receipts degrade. Employment records may be purged on retention schedules. Witness memories fade. This is high-perishability evidence. If you used Roundup at work, your employment records showing your job duties and duration are critical. If you used it at home, credit card statements, hardware store receipts, and testimony from family members who saw you use it are your proof. Gather these now, not later.
Complete medical records including NHL pathology reports, treatment history, and oncologist correspondence. These prove your specific injury, your cancer subtype, the temporal relationship to your exposure, and your damages. Older medical records may be archived, purged, or destroyed under hospital retention policies. Perishability: high — request your complete medical file from every treating facility, every oncologist, every hospital where you received treatment. Get the pathology report that confirmed your NHL diagnosis. Get every chemotherapy treatment record. Get every imaging study. These records are the proof of your injury and your damages, and they are harder to reconstruct the longer you wait.
Monsanto internal corporate documents. Emails, safety study data, and IARC response materials that may show corporate knowledge of carcinogenic risk, suppression of safety data, or strategic manipulation of scientific discourse. These support punitive damages on surviving theories. Some of these documents have been produced in prior discovery in the Roundup MDL, but additional repositories may exist. Perishability: moderate — subject to corporate document retention schedules. These are obtainable through discovery in individual litigation, but only if a case is filed and discovery is served before the documents are destroyed.
Expert reports and scientific literature on glyphosate carcinogenicity. Published literature is permanent, but expert analysis must be updated and refined post-Durnell. The IARC classification remains the foundation, but your expert’s report must address the conflicting EPA determination and explain why the IARC assessment is more reliable for your specific case.
The preservation principle is simple: the day you call a lawyer is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you. A preservation letter — a formal demand that the company and its insurers freeze all relevant evidence — is the first document we send. It creates a legal duty to preserve that, if violated, can lead to adverse-inference instructions (where the jury is told they may assume the lost evidence was unfavorable to the company) and sanctions.
How Bayer’s Lawyers Will Fight Your Surviving Claims
We know how the defense operates because Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm before joining this side of the table. He sat in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows the playbook, and we are going to share it with you so you recognize each play when it comes.
Play 1: “The EPA said it’s safe.” This is the single most powerful defense argument post-Durnell. The defense will argue that the EPA’s determination that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” is dispositive — that if the federal agency charged with evaluating pesticide safety concluded the chemical is safe, a jury cannot second-guess that determination. The counter: the IARC, a respected international body, reached the opposite conclusion using a different methodology. The EPA’s determination is not a finding that glyphosate cannot cause cancer — it is a regulatory risk assessment based on specific criteria. A jury is entitled to hear both scientific assessments and decide which is more credible. But this counter is harder to make after the Supreme Court leaned on the EPA’s determination in its preemption analysis.
Play 2: “Your cancer came from somewhere else.” NHL has multiple causes and a significant idiopathic rate — meaning many cases arise with no identifiable cause. The defense will point to age, family history, prior autoimmune conditions, other chemical exposures, or pure bad luck. The counter: documented exposure duration and intensity, the IARC classification, dose-response evidence, and a treating oncologist who can rule out alternative causes and support glyphosate as the likely trigger.
Play 3: “The class settlement is your best option — take it.” Bayer’s lawyers and claims administrators will present the class settlement as the practical, rational choice. They will emphasize the uncertainty of individual litigation, the cost and time of trial, and the risk of losing. Some of this is honest — the post-ruling landscape is genuinely riskier for plaintiffs. But the settlement terms may undervalue strong individual claims, and the 21-year payment structure means the money arrives slowly. The counter: an individualized assessment of your case strength, your financial needs, and the settlement terms — conducted by a lawyer who represents you, not the class.
Play 4: “You waited too long.” The defense will argue that the statute of limitations has expired. In Missouri, the personal-injury statute of limitations provides five years to file, but the discovery rule may apply — meaning the clock may start when you knew or should have known that your cancer was caused by Roundup, not when you were exposed. The defense will argue for the earliest possible accrual date. The counter: careful documentation of when you first learned of the potential connection between Roundup and NHL, and prompt filing once that connection is known.
Play 5: Low early settlement offers. Before the class settlement terms are final, the defense may approach individual claimants with low settlement offers designed to resolve cases cheaply before the claimant understands the full value of their case. The counter: never accept a settlement offer without consulting a lawyer who can evaluate it against the full range of your legal options, including participation in the class settlement or individual litigation on surviving theories.
How a Post-Ruling Roundup Case Is Built
The proof story for a Roundup cancer case has changed, but the methodology has not. Here is how a case is actually built, step by step, in the post-Durnell landscape.
Week one: preservation and intake. The day you call, we send a preservation letter to Monsanto/Bayer and any other relevant parties demanding that all evidence be frozen — internal documents, testing data, regulatory correspondence, and any materials related to your specific claim. Simultaneously, we begin gathering your evidence: employment records, purchase receipts, medical records, witness statements, and any physical product or packaging you still have.
Intake and claim evaluation. We evaluate your exposure history — how long you used Roundup, how frequently, under what conditions, and with what level of direct contact. We review your medical records — your NHL subtype, your diagnosis date, your treatment history, your prognosis. We assess the strength of your causation evidence and identify the legal theories most likely to succeed in your specific case.
Medical and expert coordination. We work with your treating oncologist to document the connection between your NHL and your glyphosate exposure. In individual litigation, we retain a toxicologist or epidemiologist to bridge the IARC-versus-EPA scientific conflict and provide specific causation testimony. We may retain a life-care planner to document your future medical needs and a forensic economist to calculate your lost earning capacity.
Filing and discovery. If individual litigation is the right path, we file your case — in Missouri state court, in the federal Roundup MDL (MDL-2741, before Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California), or in another appropriate venue depending on your jurisdiction and circumstances. We serve discovery requests targeting Monsanto’s internal documents — corporate emails, safety study data, IARC response materials, and any evidence of corporate knowledge of carcinogenic risk.
Motion practice and preemption defense. Bayer’s lawyers will move to dismiss your surviving claims on preemption grounds, arguing that FIFRA bars not just failure-to-warn claims but all state-law claims related to Roundup. We respond with the distinction between labeling claims (preempted) and design/testing/warranty claims (potentially not preempted). This motion practice is the first major legal fight in any post-ruling individual case.
Mediation, settlement, or trial. Depending on the strength of your case, the outcome of preemption motions, and the status of the class settlement, we evaluate whether to mediate, settle, or proceed to trial. The post-ruling landscape has shifted settlement dynamics — Bayer’s position is stronger, and settlement values may be lower than pre-ruling levels. But a strong individual case with compelling exposure evidence and a clear causation story still has value.
Missouri Law and Your Roundup Claim
Missouri is where the Durnell case began, where the proposed $7.25 billion class settlement is pending, and where Missouri’s court system has historically provided an accessible forum for product-liability plaintiffs. The Missouri-specific legal framework matters for your case.
Statute of limitations. Missouri’s personal-injury statute of limitations gives you five years to file a claim from the date the cause of action accrues. For latent-disease cases like cancer caused by chemical exposure, the discovery rule may apply — meaning the clock may start when you knew or should have known that your injury was caused by the defendant’s product, not when you were exposed decades ago. This is a critical protection for Roundup claimants, many of whom used the product for years before developing cancer. But the defense will argue for the earliest possible accrual date, so documenting when you first learned of the potential Roundup-NHL connection is essential.
Comparative negligence. Missouri follows a pure comparative negligence system, which means your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault but is never automatically erased — you can recover even if you were substantially at fault, though your award shrinks proportionally. In the Roundup context, the defense may argue that you misused the product, failed to follow label instructions, or failed to wear protective equipment. Each percentage point of fault they pin on you reduces your recovery, which is why the defense works so hard to shift blame.
Damage caps. Missouri does not impose general tort damage caps outside of medical malpractice. This means compensatory damages in product-liability cases — both economic (medical costs, lost wages, lost earning capacity) and non-economic (pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of quality of life) — are not statutorily limited. Punitive damages may also be available in product-liability cases where the plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others.
The class settlement venue. The proposed $7.25 billion class settlement is pending in Missouri state court. If you are a Missouri resident, or if your exposure occurred in Missouri, the Missouri court’s handling of the settlement may have direct implications for your claim. Monitoring the settlement proceedings — including approval deadlines, opt-out deadlines, and objection procedures — is essential for any current or prospective claimant.
Your Next Steps: A Practical Roadmap
If you used Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, here is what you should do — and what you should not do — right now.
Do gather your evidence immediately. Collect every document that connects you to Roundup use and to your cancer diagnosis. Employment records showing jobs where you used Roundup. Purchase receipts or credit card statements from hardware stores. Old product containers or packaging. Your complete medical file — pathology reports, chemotherapy records, imaging studies, oncologist notes. The names and contact information of anyone who witnessed your Roundup use. Do this now, not after you talk to a lawyer, because the evidence is degrading every day.
Do not sign anything from Bayer, Monsanto, or any claims administrator without having a lawyer review it. If you receive a settlement offer, a class-action notice, a release form, or any document that asks you to give up rights in exchange for money, do not sign it until a lawyer who represents you — not the class, not the company — has reviewed it and explained what you are giving up and what you are getting.
Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance adjuster or claims representative. A friendly call asking you to “just tell us what happened” is engineered to lock you into a narrative that can be used against you later. You are under no obligation to provide a recorded statement to the other side’s insurance company.
Do not post about your case on social media. Defense investigators monitor social media for posts that can be used to minimize your claim — a photo of you at a family gathering used to argue your quality of life is not as diminished as you claim, a post about physical activity used to argue your cancer is not as severe as you say.
Do monitor the class settlement proceedings. The proposed $7.25 billion class settlement in Missouri state court has approval proceedings that will include deadlines for participation, objection, and opt-out. Missing these deadlines can affect your rights. A lawyer can monitor these proceedings for you and alert you when action is required.
Do call a lawyer. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And the day you call is the day the evidence-preservation clock starts working for you instead of against you. Call 1-888-ATTY-911, any hour, any day. We don’t get paid unless we win your case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is my Roundup cancer lawsuit dead after the Supreme Court ruling?
No, not automatically. The Supreme Court ruled that FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims — the theory that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the Roundup label. That specific theory is foreclosed. But design-defect claims, negligent-testing claims, breach-of-warranty claims, and strict-liability claims that are not premised on the adequacy of the EPA-approved label may survive. These theories are untested in the post-ruling landscape and face strong defense arguments, but they have not been eliminated by the ruling.
What happened to the $1.25 million verdict in the Durnell case?
The $1.25 million verdict, which was obtained in Missouri state court in 2023 on the failure-to-warn theory, is effectively reversed by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The jury in that case rejected every claim except failure to warn — and that is the one claim the Supreme Court has now preempted. We state this clearly: that verdict did not survive.
What is the $7.25 billion class settlement?
Bayer proposed a $7.25 billion class settlement in February to resolve current and future Roundup claims. The settlement is pending in Missouri state court and, if approved, would involve annual payments by Monsanto for up to 21 years. Individual recovery amounts would vary based on exposure duration, cancer severity, and other claim characteristics. The settlement is proposed, not approved — the court must review the terms and determine whether they are fair to class members.
Should I participate in the class settlement or pursue individual litigation?
This depends on the strength of your individual case, the terms of the settlement once they are final, your financial needs, and your tolerance for litigation risk. A strong case with compelling exposure evidence and a clear causation story may carry higher value in individual litigation on surviving theories. A weaker case, or a claimant who needs compensation sooner rather than later, may benefit from the class settlement. This decision should be made with a lawyer who represents your individual interests, not the class.
How long do I have to file a Roundup cancer claim in Missouri?
Missouri’s personal-injury statute of limitations provides five years to file. For latent-disease cases like cancer caused by chemical exposure, the discovery rule may apply — meaning the clock may start when you knew or should have known that your cancer was connected to Roundup, not when you were exposed. But this is not a guarantee, and the defense will argue for the earliest possible accrual date. Do not assume you have plenty of time — talk to a lawyer to confirm the deadline for your specific situation.
Can I still sue if I already filed a Roundup lawsuit?
If you have a pending Roundup lawsuit, the Supreme Court ruling does not automatically dismiss your case — but your failure-to-warn claim is likely to be dismissed or stricken. Your attorney should be evaluating whether to amend your complaint to pursue surviving theories (design defect, negligent testing, warranty) and whether to participate in the class settlement. If your case is in the Roundup MDL (MDL-2741, Northern District of California), the ruling will affect the MDL’s management of failure-to-warn claims.
What if my family member died from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup?
If a family member died from NHL after years of Roundup exposure, a wrongful-death claim may be available under Missouri law, with its own statute of limitations, beneficiary requirements, and damage categories. The Supreme Court ruling affects the failure-to-warn theory in a wrongful-death case the same way it affects a personal-injury case, but surviving theories — design defect, negligent testing, warranty — may still be available. Contact a lawyer as soon as possible, because wrongful-death deadlines can be shorter than personal-injury deadlines.
Does the Supreme Court ruling mean Roundup is safe?
No. The Supreme Court did not rule that Roundup is safe or that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The Court ruled that FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims. The scientific conflict between the IARC’s 2015 classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” and the EPA’s determination that it is “not likely to be carcinogenic” remains unresolved. The Court addressed a legal question about preemption, not a scientific question about carcinogenicity.
What evidence do I need for a Roundup cancer case?
You need three categories of evidence: exposure documentation (purchase receipts, employment records, witness statements showing how long and how intensively you used Roundup), medical documentation (pathology reports confirming your NHL diagnosis, treatment records, oncologist correspondence), and medical-expert testimony linking your specific cancer to your glyphosate exposure. The sooner you gather this evidence, the stronger your case — because receipts degrade, records get purged, and memories fade.
Is it too late to file a Roundup cancer lawsuit?
It may not be too late, depending on when you were diagnosed, when you learned of the potential connection between Roundup and NHL, and your state’s statute of limitations and discovery-rule rules. Missouri’s five-year statute of limitations is among the more generous in the country, and the discovery rule may extend the filing window for latent-disease cases. But you should not assume you have time — the only safe move is to talk to a lawyer who can confirm the deadline for your specific situation.
Why Attorney911
Attorney911 is The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are Legal Emergency Lawyers. We have been taking cases in Missouri and across the country since 2001, and we have recovered more than $50 million for our clients. We operate on contingency — 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. We don’t get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And we answer the phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week — live staff, not an answering service.
Ralph Manginello is our Managing Partner. He has been licensed and practicing for 27+ years, including in federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he knows how to find the story the evidence tells and present it to a jury in language they understand. He handles the full range of our catastrophic-injury and wrongful-death cases, and his experience in complex litigation is the foundation of our approach to mass-tort and product-liability work.
Lupe Peña is our Associate Attorney. He is a former insurance-defense attorney who spent years inside a national defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like you. He knows how claims are valued from the inside, how IME doctors are selected, how surveillance is used, and how delay tactics work. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
We are not the counsel of record on the Monsanto Co. v. Durnell case or any specific Roundup litigation mentioned on this page. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we are is a powerful resource — the education, the governing law, the evidence clocks, the decision power, and the honest evaluation of what a case like yours is worth in this changed landscape. If you used Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the decision you make in the coming weeks — about the class settlement, about individual litigation, about evidence preservation — may be the most important decision in your case. We can help you make it.
Hablamos Español.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win your case.