Blog

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma & Toxic Tort Claims After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Preemption Ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell: Attorney911 Evaluates What Survives for NHL Plaintients Across MassTort-National When the Failure-to-Warn Theory Is Foreclosed, We Pursue Bayer-Monsanto on Design Defect, Fraudulent Concealment and Negligent Testing Theories FIFRA Does Not Preempt, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Agrochemical Claims Machine Values and Denies Cancer Cases, We Move to Preserve Exposure Records, Usage History and NHL Pathology Before Evidence Degrades, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Supreme Court Just Rewrote the Roundup Litigation — What It Means for Your Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Claim You are reading this because you used Roundup. Maybe for years — on the farm, in the nursery, along the fence line, at the job site where spraying was just part of the day. And then the diagnosis came: non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A blood cancer you never saw coming. You heard about the lawsuits, the settlements, the billions that Bayer and Monsanto have paid out. Maybe you even signed up with a firm, or you were about to. And now the news has landed: the Supreme Court just ruled, and the headline says the Roundup litigation is finished. It is not finished. But it has changed — dramatically, and in ways that narrow the road ahead. We are going to tell you the truth about what just happened, what this ruling kills, and what still lives. False hope is a disservice to you. But so is walking away from a claim that may still have a path. What you need are facts, and a lawyer who knows the difference between a closed door and a harder one. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle toxic tort claims and catastrophic injury cases, and we built this page because the legal landscape just shifted under tens of thousands of people, and almost nobody is explaining what it means in plain language. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. Lupe…

32 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Product Liability Attorneys: John Durnell’s 20-Year Glyphosate Exposure Case & the Supreme Court’s 7-2 FIFRA Preemption Ruling That Overturned His Million-Dollar Award — Attorney911 Brings Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice to Surviving Design-Defect and Fraudulent-Concealment Theories, We Pursue Bayer AG and Monsanto’s Glyphosate Herbicide, Secure Internal Corporate Documents and Exposure Records Before They Degrade, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Agrochemical Claims Machine Values and Denies Cancer Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims, Missouri’s Uncapped Damages and Pure Comparative-Fault Doctrine — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Missouri Roundup Lawsuit After the Supreme Court — What the Ruling Closes, What It Leaves Open, and What You Should Do Right Now You used Roundup for years. You were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. You may have already been part of the litigation, or you were considering calling a lawyer, or you were waiting to see how the Supreme Court case would come out before deciding what to do. Now the news says the Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs — seven to two — and you are sitting in your kitchen wondering whether your case just died. We are going to tell you the truth about what this ruling means, what it does not mean, and whether any path forward still exists. We will not sugarcoat it. The ruling is a serious blow — it closed the main door that more than a decade of Roundup litigation walked through. But it did not close every door, it did not declare Roundup safe, and it did not say glyphosate does not cause cancer. What the Supreme Court decided was a question of federal law — whether the EPA’s decision not to require a cancer warning on the label prevents state courts from imposing one through a lawsuit. The Court said yes. That is a preemption ruling, not a scientific ruling, and the difference matters more than anything else on this page. If you have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and you have a history of significant Roundup exposure, you need an honest evaluation…

42 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Litigation After Bayer’s Ruveon Restructuring & SCOTUS FIFRA Preemption — Attorney911 Pursues Bayer-Monsanto and Its New Glyphosate Subsidiary for Product-Liability Claims Nationwide, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, We Move to Preserve Internal Corporate Communications and Exposure Records Before the Asset Transfer Complicates Discovery, FIFRA Preemption Bars State Failure-to-Warn but Design-Defect and Negligent-Testing Theories Remain, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Tort Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Ruveon Restructuring: What Bayer’s New Glyphosate Subsidiary Means for Your Roundup Cancer Claim You used Roundup. Maybe for years — on the farm, at the landscaping company, in your own backyard. Then the diagnosis came: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. And somewhere in the fog of chemotherapy schedules and insurance fights, you started hearing about the lawsuits — thousands of them, billions of dollars in settlements, a Supreme Court case that was supposed to decide everything. Now you’re reading that the Supreme Court ruled in Bayer’s favor. And Bayer just created a brand-new company called Ruveon to run its entire glyphosate business. The stock jumped 8 percent. Analysts are saying it could be the first step toward spinning off the Roundup business entirely — walking away from the liability while keeping the profits. We are writing this for you — the person sitting at a kitchen table at 2 a.m. with a cancer diagnosis and a folder of medical bills, trying to figure out whether you still have a case or whether the door just closed. That door did not close. It changed shape. What walked through it is a more complicated fight, but it is a fight that can still be won — if you understand what the Supreme Court actually ruled, what Bayer is actually doing with Ruveon, and what legal theories survived the preemption decision when the failure-to-warn theory did not. This is what we do — we handle toxic tort and product liability cases with the same intensity…

35 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Cancer Lawsuits After the Supreme Court’s 7-2 FIFRA Preemption Ruling: Attorney911 Pursues Bayer and the Monsanto Glyphosate Product Line on Design-Defect and Negligence-in-Testing Theories That Survive the Failure-to-Warn Strike, We Secure the Internal Monsanto Research, EPA Submission Files and IARC Carcinogenicity Data Before the Statute of Limitations Runs, Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Hematologic Malignancy Claims Across MassTort-National, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Tort Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Supreme Court Just Ruled for Bayer on Roundup — Here Is What It Means for Your Cancer Case If you used Roundup and later heard the word cancer in the same sentence as your own name, you already know the worst part is not the lawsuit. The worst part is the waiting room. The biopsy. The moment someone who loves you tries to be brave and fails at it. The Supreme Court ruling that just came down is not the thing that keeps you up at night — but it may be the thing that changes whether the company whose product you sprayed for years has to answer for what happened to your body, and on what terms. Here is what the Court held, in plain English: by a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that Bayer — which acquired Monsanto, the original maker of Roundup, in 2018 — cannot be held liable under state law for failing to warn consumers that Roundup might cause cancer, because the Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the product under federal pesticide law and decided no cancer warning was required on the label. The Court said that when a federal regulator makes that call, state courts cannot impose a different warning duty through tort law. That is a significant ruling. It removes the primary legal theory that drove the largest Roundup verdicts — the claim that Monsanto knew or should have known about the cancer risk and failed to put a warning on the…

37 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Cancer Failure-to-Warn Claims After SCOTUS FIFRA Preemption — Attorney911 Brings Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice to Missouri Glyphosate Product-Liability Cases, We Pursue Bayer AG and Monsanto’s Distribution Chain on Surviving Design-Defect, Negligence and Fraud Theories When the Label-Warning Claim Is Barred, John Durnell’s $1M Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Verdict Reversed Yet Alternative Claims Remain Under Missouri’s Comparative-Fault and Punitive-Damages Framework, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies These Cases, We Preserve Decades-Long Exposure Histories and Internal Corporate Risk Documents Before They Disappear, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Supreme Court Just Changed Your Roundup Case — Here Is What It Means for You You used Roundup for years. Maybe decades. You developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A jury in Missouri looked at the evidence and awarded more than a million dollars to a man whose story sounds like yours — and then the United States Supreme Court took that verdict away. If you are reading this at 2 a.m. with a folder of medical bills and a phone full of voicemails from a lawyer who has not called back since the news broke, you need to know three things right now, before anything else. First: the ruling does not say Roundup is safe. The Court said so explicitly. It answered one legal question — whether a state-law failure-to-warn claim can go forward when the warning sought is not part of the label approved by the EPA. It did not decide whether glyphosate causes cancer. It did not exonerate Monsanto. It drew a line around one specific legal theory. Second: your case is not automatically dead. The theory that the Supreme Court barred — failure to warn based on a label warning the EPA did not require — was the theory that produced the million-dollar Missouri verdict, and that verdict has been reversed. But there are other theories. Design defect, negligence, and fraud claims challenge different things — the product’s formulation, the company’s conduct, the alleged suppression of scientific data — and the Supreme Court’s ruling did not directly address…

41 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Missouri Roundup Cancer Lawsuit Attorneys: Attorney911 Litigates Glyphosate Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Claims Against Bayer-Monsanto After the Supreme Court’s 7-2 FIFRA Ruling Reversed a $1.25 Million Verdict, We Pursue Surviving Design Defect, Negligent Testing and Breach of Warranty Theories the Preemption Decision Did Not Reach, We Preserve Purchase Receipts, Exposure Logs and Oncology Pathology Records Before They Degrade, the Pending $7.25 Billion Class Settlement Now Before State Court, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Pure Comparative Negligence Still Governs Surviving Claims, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

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…

41 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Supreme Court FIFRA Ruling Shields Bayer-Monsanto from Roundup Cancer Failure-to-Warn Claims — But Iowa Farmers Diagnosed with Cancer May Still Have Product Liability Paths Through Design Defect, Fraud and Negligent-Testing Theories: Attorney911 Brings Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice to Glyphosate Litigation, We Pursue the Agrochemical Manufacturer and Its Distribution Chain, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies These Cases, We Move to Preserve Exposure Records, Medical Charts and Internal Corporate Files Before the Spoliation Clock Runs and the Statute of Limitations Expires, IARC Classified Glyphosate as Probably Carcinogenic While the Industry-Backed Safety Study Was Retracted, Iowa Imposes No Statutory Caps on Compensatory Damages in Cancer and Wrongful-Death Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims & Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Iowa Roundup Cancer Lawsuits After the Supreme Court Blocks Failure-to-Warn Claims If you are reading this in Iowa — on a kitchen table in Muscatine, in a farm office outside Ames, in a hospital waiting room in Iowa City — you just heard that the Supreme Court ruled the maker of Roundup cannot be sued for failing to warn people that the weedkiller could cause cancer. And your first thought was probably: my case is dead. The agricultural organizations that lobbied for this outcome said it protects farmers. The company’s CEO called it “overdue justice.” Both candidates for Iowa governor called it a terrible decision. We are going to tell you what the ruling actually does, what it does not do, and why the path forward, while harder, is not closed. The ruling blocks one legal theory — failure-to-warn based on the product label — under a federal pesticide law called FIFRA. It does not block every theory. Design defect claims, fraud claims, and negligent-testing claims target corporate conduct that has nothing to do with the label, and those doors remain open. The Iowa farmers, applicators, and rural families who have been breathing and handling glyphosate for decades deserve to know exactly what survives, what the evidence looks like, and what to do right now before the proof disappears. That is what this page is for. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, and we take toxic tort and catastrophic injury cases in Iowa. The consultation is free. We…

34 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Product Liability & Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Attorneys — Attorney911 Pursues Bayer AG and Monsanto for Glyphosate Exposure Claims After the Supreme Court’s 7-2 Preemption Ruling Overturned a Missouri Jury Verdict, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Tort Cases, We Preserve the Medical Records, Exposure Logs and Product Containers Before the Evidence Clock Runs, FIFRA Labeling and the IARC Probable Carcinogen Classification, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Supreme Court Just Ruled Against Roundup Cancer Victims — Here Is What It Means for You You may have heard the news on June 25, 2026, and felt the floor drop out from under you. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to side with Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, overturning a Missouri jury’s verdict for a man who spent more than two decades spraying the weedkiller before a doctor told him he had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The ruling is expected to block thousands of similar lawsuits across the country — cases filed by farmers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and homeowners who did the same thing that plaintiff did: they used Roundup, year after year, and then got a cancer diagnosis they never saw coming. If that is your story — or your father’s, your mother’s, your spouse’s — you need to hear the truth, and you need it now, before frustration becomes surrender. The science connecting glyphosate to cancer has not changed. The International Agency for Research on Cancer still classifies it as a probable human carcinogen. What changed is the legal door. And a narrowed door is not always a closed one. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle toxic tort and product liability cases, and what we owe you here is not optimism but honesty: what the ruling did, what it did not do, which legal theories may still survive, and exactly what evidence you need to preserve before it disappears. We are not going to tell you…

44 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Claims After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Preemption Ruling — Attorney911 Pursues Bayer and Monsanto in the MassTort-National Glyphosate Litigation, Where Failure-to-Warn Claims Face FIFRA Preemption but Design-Defect and Fraudulent-Concealment Theories Built on Monsanto’s Internal Documents May Survive, We Preserve Exposure Histories, Purchase Records and Oncology Files Before the Evidence Degrades, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Exposure Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Supreme Court Just Ruled for Monsanto on Roundup — Here Is What It Means for Your Cancer Claim You just read the headline. Monsanto won at the United States Supreme Court. Maybe you have a pending Roundup claim and your heart dropped. Maybe you used Roundup for years, you have non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and you were counting on the legal system to hold the company accountable — and now you are wondering whether the door just closed. We need you to hear this clearly before you read another word of news coverage: this ruling is a serious blow to one legal theory, but it is not the end of every Roundup case, and it is absolutely not a court ruling that Roundup is safe. The Supreme Court answered a question about who gets to decide what goes on a pesticide label — the federal government or a state jury. It did not conduct a scientific review of whether glyphosate causes cancer. Those are two different things, and the difference is where your remaining rights live. We are going to walk you through exactly what happened, what it means for your specific situation, and what you should do in the days and weeks ahead. This is not a time to panic, and it is not a time to abandon a claim without understanding what still survives. It is a time to get honest, precise information from people who know how mass tort litigation actually works — not from a headline designed…

33 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Talcum Powder Mesothelioma & Cancer Product Liability Attorneys, Attorney911 Pursues Johnson & Johnson and the Talc Supply Chain Behind Asbestos-Contaminated Baby Powder Across the MassTort-National Litigation Where Approximately 60,000 Lawsuits Allege Asbestos Contamination Caused Mesothelioma Lung Cancer and Ovarian Cancer, the Journal of Thoracic Oncology Confirms Asbestos Not Talc Is the Carcinogen While The Lancet Retracted a 1977 Safety Paper by an Undisclosed J&J Consultant for Breach of Publishing Ethics, We Preserve Product Containers and Pathology Tissue Blocks for Asbestos-Fiber Testing Before the Evidence Window Closes, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice With Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How Corporate Claims Teams Value and Deny These Cases, the Discovery Rule and Fraud-Based Tolling That Extend Filing Deadlines When a Manufacturer Conceals Contamination Risks, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims and Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Study That Headlines Say Kills Talc Cases Actually Strengthens Yours You saw the headline. Maybe a doctor mentioned it. Maybe a family member forwarded it to you with a question that felt like a verdict: “If talc without asbestos isn’t dangerous, does that mean your case is over?” You are sitting with a cancer diagnosis — possibly mesothelioma, possibly ovarian cancer, possibly lung cancer — and you used talcum powder for years, maybe decades. And now a scientific study seems to say the thing you were exposed to is safe. The fear that arrives in that moment is specific and sharp: that the law has already decided against you before you ever walked into a courtroom. Here is the truth, and it is the opposite of what the headline suggests. That study does not weaken your case. It confirms it. The research found that asbestos-free talc does not cause mesothelioma — which means the mesothelioma you developed came from the asbestos that was in the talcum powder you used. The study isolates asbestos as the killer, not talc. And that is exactly what thousands of plaintiffs have alleged in the roughly 60,000 lawsuits currently pending against Johnson & Johnson: that the company’s baby powder was contaminated with asbestos, and that the asbestos caused the cancer. We handle toxic tort cases at Attorney911, and we have watched this litigation evolve. The science is now sharper than it has ever been — and it points directly at asbestos contamination in cosmetic…

32 min read Read Article