The Supreme Court Just Ruled for Monsanto — and You Need to Know What That Means for Your Roundup Cancer Case
You used Roundup. You got non-Hodgkin lymphoma. You may have been reading about the lawsuits for months or years, wondering whether to call a lawyer, waiting to see how the big legal questions would shake out. Now the headline says the Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto’s favor, and your first thought is probably: that’s it — they killed my case.
Maybe. Maybe not. And the difference between those two answers is exactly why you need to read this page carefully and then call us at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a free consultation. Because the Supreme Court ruling — which centers on whether federal pesticide law blocks state-law failure-to-warn claims — does not automatically end every Roundup case. It changes the legal terrain. Some claims are in serious trouble. Others may still have a path. And the deadline clock on your case may still be running even if you think you waited too long.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We build toxic-exposure and product-liability cases. This page is not a news recap. It is a straight, detailed explanation of what the ruling means, what survives it, what the science actually says about glyphosate and cancer, how a Roundup case is built, what the insurance and settlement reality looks like, and what you should do right now. We wrote it for one person: someone who sprayed this product, got sick, and needs to know whether they still have rights. You do. Let’s look at exactly which ones.
What the Supreme Court Decided in the Roundup Preemption Case
The case the Supreme Court decided — Monsanto Company v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 — asked one question: does the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, expressly block state-law claims that argue Monsanto should have warned consumers that Roundup could cause cancer? The Court had granted certiorari in January 2026 and heard oral argument in April 2026. The question presented was whether FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA considered the cancer question and elected not to require a cancer warning on the glyphosate label.
The Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto’s favor. That means the Court concluded that FIFRA’s express preemption clause bars at least some state-law failure-to-warn claims tied to Roundup’s label. The practical effect: in states where plaintiffs had been arguing that Monsanto owed a duty to put a cancer warning on the bottle, that specific theory now faces a federal preemption wall that did not exist before the ruling.
Here is why this matters in plain language. FIFRA is the federal law that governs how pesticides are registered, labeled, and sold in the United States. Under FIFRA, the EPA reviews pesticide labels and decides what warnings must appear on them. The EPA has repeatedly taken the position that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” and has not required a cancer warning on glyphosate products. Monsanto’s argument to the Supreme Court was straightforward: if the federal agency charged with regulating pesticide labels considered the cancer question and decided no warning was needed, individual states should not be allowed to impose a different warning requirement through their own tort laws — because FIFRA says states cannot impose labeling requirements that are “in addition to or different from” the federal requirements.
The preemption clause at the center of the ruling provides that a state “shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under” FIFRA. The question was whether a state-court judgment holding Monsanto liable for failing to warn about cancer constitutes a state “requirement for labeling” that differs from what EPA required. The Supreme Court said it does — at least for the failure-to-warn claims at issue in the Durnell case.
What we do not yet know with certainty — because the precise scope of the opinion depends on its exact language — is how far the ruling reaches. Does it preempt only failure-to-warn claims that would require a cancer warning on the label? Or does it extend to design-defect claims, fraud claims, and negligent-testing claims that do not directly seek a different label? That distinction is the single most important question for anyone who used Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and it is why you need a lawyer to look at the specific facts of your case rather than assuming the ruling closed the courthouse door.
What Claims May Still Survive the Preemption Ruling
The failure-to-warn theory was the primary engine of the early Roundup litigation. It was the theory that produced the bellwether verdicts in California — verdicts that were significant, though several were later reduced on appeal, and the record across all Roundup trials was genuinely mixed. With the Supreme Court having ruled that FIFRA preempts at least some failure-to-warn claims tied to the label, plaintiffs’ lawyers are now pivoting to theories that may survive preemption because they do not require a different label to be printed on the bottle.
Design-defect claims argue that the product itself was unreasonably dangerous — not that the label was missing a warning, but that a safer design or formulation should have been used, or that the risks of the product as designed outweigh its utility. Whether this theory survives preemption depends on whether the court views a design-defect judgment as imposing a “requirement for labeling” or as something distinct. Some courts have held that design-defect claims turning on the adequacy of warnings are preempted, while design-defect claims challenging the product’s formulation or safety profile independent of labeling may not be. This is an actively evolving area and the exact answer depends on the jurisdiction and the specifics of how the claim is pleaded.
Negligent-testing claims argue that Monsanto failed to conduct adequate safety testing before bringing Roundup to market. This theory does not require a different label — it attacks the company’s pre-market conduct, not the words on the bottle. A company can be liable for negligently failing to study whether its product causes cancer even if the EPA did not require a cancer warning on the label.
Fraudulent-concealment claims argue that Monsanto actively hid or manipulated scientific evidence about glyphosate’s cancer potential. Internal documents produced in the Roundup MDL revealed discussions about ghostwriting scientific papers, influencing regulatory reviews, and shaping the scientific narrative around glyphosate. A fraud claim based on concealing evidence from regulators and the public does not necessarily require a different label — it requires proof that the company deceived someone about a material fact. Whether this theory survives preemption is a live legal question, but it is fundamentally different from a failure-to-warn claim.
Breach-of-implied-warranty claims argue that the product was not fit for its ordinary intended use because it caused cancer. Depending on how this is framed — and depending on whether the court treats a warranty claim as a labeling requirement or a product-safety claim — it may or may not survive.
The critical takeaway: the Supreme Court ruling did not hold that Roundup is safe. It did not hold that glyphosate does not cause cancer. It did not hold that Monsanto is immune from all liability. It held that one specific type of claim — failure-to-warn based on the label — is preempted by federal pesticide law. Other theories exist. Whether they work for you depends on your specific exposure history, your diagnosis, your state’s law, and how your lawyer pleads your case. This is why calling a lawyer now matters more than ever — because the legal terrain just shifted, and the cases that survive are the ones that are built carefully from day one to avoid the preemption wall.
The Science Disagreement at the Heart of Every Roundup Case
To understand why the Supreme Court even had a preemption question to decide, you have to understand the deep disagreement between two authoritative bodies about whether glyphosate causes cancer in humans.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer — IARC, which is the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization — classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in March 2015. IARC’s Group 2A classification means there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence in animals. IARC based its determination on a review of the available scientific evidence, including epidemiological studies of agricultural workers exposed to glyphosate and laboratory studies showing DNA damage in human cells.
The EPA has taken a different position. The EPA has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” This conclusion has been the basis for EPA’s decision not to require a cancer warning on glyphosate product labels. The EPA’s position was central to Monsanto’s preemption argument: the company argued that because the federal regulator considered the cancer question and affirmatively decided a warning was not needed, states cannot impose a different requirement through tort law.
This scientific disagreement is not just an academic debate. It is the battlefield. Plaintiffs’ experts point to IARC’s classification, to epidemiological studies showing elevated non-Hodgkin lymphoma rates in heavily exposed agricultural workers, and to mechanistic evidence showing glyphosate can cause genotoxicity — DNA damage that can lead to cancer. Defense experts point to the EPA’s conclusion, to studies the EPA relied on, and to the argument that the epidemiological evidence is inconsistent and the mechanistic evidence is inconclusive.
The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling does not resolve this scientific disagreement. It does not say IARC is wrong or the EPA is right. It says that when the federal regulator charged with labeling pesticides has made a determination about what warnings are required, state tort law cannot impose a different labeling requirement. The science is still fought in every case — it is just fought on different legal terrain now.
The Medicine: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Glyphosate Exposure
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a cancer that begins in the lymphatic system — specifically in white blood cells called lymphocytes, which are part of the body’s immune defense. When lymphocytes develop genetic mutations, they can grow and multiply abnormally, forming tumors in lymph nodes, spleen, bone marrow, and other lymph tissue. Unlike Hodgkin lymphoma, which is characterized by the presence of a specific type of abnormal cell called a Reed-Sternberg cell, non-Hodgkin lymphoma encompasses a broad group of lymphomas with different cell types, growth patterns, and prognoses.
The subtypes of NHL range from indolent — slow-growing types like follicular lymphoma that may not even require immediate treatment — to aggressive, like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, which requires urgent intervention. The distinction matters for treatment, for prognosis, and for the damages calculation in a lawsuit, because the cost of care and the impact on a person’s life vary enormously depending on which subtype they have and how it responds to treatment.
The proposed mechanism by which glyphosate may cause NHL involves genotoxicity — the ability of a chemical to damage DNA. Some studies have shown that glyphosate and its formulations can cause oxidative stress and DNA damage in human cells. The theory is that chronic exposure to glyphosate damages the DNA of lymphocytes over time, eventually producing the mutations that drive malignant transformation. Whether this mechanism operates in real-world exposure scenarios — and at the doses a home gardener or a professional landscaper would receive — is one of the scientific battlegrounds of the litigation.
Diagnosis of NHL typically begins when a patient notices a swollen lymph node or experiences symptoms like unexplained weight loss, night sweats, or fatigue. The diagnostic workup includes a physical examination, blood tests, imaging studies (typically a PET-CT scan), and — critically — a lymph node biopsy. The biopsy is what confirms the diagnosis and determines the subtype. A hematopathologist examines the tissue under a microscope and uses immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry to classify the lymphoma. Bone marrow biopsy may follow to determine the stage.
Treatment depends on the subtype and stage. For aggressive NHL, the standard first-line regimen for many subtypes is R-CHOP — a combination of chemotherapy drugs plus rituximab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a protein on the surface of B-cell lymphomas. Other treatments include radiation therapy, stem cell transplants for relapsed or refractory disease, and newer immunotherapies including CAR-T cell therapy, which engineers a patient’s own T-cells to attack the cancer. For indolent NHL, treatment may involve watchful waiting, targeted therapies, or radiation.
The cost of NHL treatment is substantial. A single course of R-CHOP chemotherapy involves multiple drugs administered over several cycles, each with its own cost. Stem cell transplants — which may be needed if initial treatment fails — can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. CAR-T cell therapy, one of the most advanced cancer treatments available, can cost in the range of $300,000 to $400,000 or more per treatment course. Beyond the direct medical costs, NHL often forces patients to stop working during treatment and recovery, and some never return to their prior earning capacity. A complete damages picture in a Roundup NHL case includes past and future medical costs, lost wages, lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, and — in fatal cases — wrongful-death damages.
The latency period — the time between exposure to a carcinogen and the appearance of cancer — is relevant to both the science and the statute of limitations. For NHL, the latency from chemical exposure is not as precisely defined as it is for some other cancers (mesothelioma from asbestos, for example, has a well-established 20-to-50-year latency). Studies suggest that the relevant latency for NHL from pesticide exposure may be measured in years to a decade or more, which means a person who used Roundup regularly in the 2000s or 2010s could develop NHL years later.
Bayer and Monsanto: The Corporate Structure Behind Roundup
Monsanto Company developed and sold Roundup for decades. Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, was patented by Monsanto in the 1970s. Monsanto became one of the largest agricultural-chemistry companies in the world on the strength of Roundup and its genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops, which were designed to survive being sprayed with the herbicide.
In 2018, Bayer AG — the German pharmaceutical and life-sources giant — acquired Monsanto for $63 billion. Monsanto became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer. Bayer subsequently announced it would phase out the Monsanto name in its commercial operations, but Monsanto Company remained as the legal entity and the caption defendant in the litigation. When you sue over Roundup, the defendant is still “Monsanto Company” — but the balance sheet standing behind it is Bayer’s.
This corporate structure matters for several reasons. First, Bayer is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, with annual revenue in the tens of billions of dollars. It is a deep-pocket defendant — the kind of company that can absorb significant liability without being bankrupted. Second, the acquisition created a complex corporate structure for liability purposes: Monsanto Company is the manufacturer and the primary defendant, but Bayer AG is the parent whose resources ultimately back any judgment or settlement. Third, the acquisition meant that Bayer inherited not just Roundup’s revenue but its litigation exposure — and Bayer’s management has described Roundup liability as one of the most significant challenges facing the company.
In 2020, Bayer announced a settlement program reportedly valued at approximately $10 billion to resolve Roundup litigation. The settlement was intended to cover a large portion of then-existing cases and to establish a framework for future claims. Not all plaintiffs participated, however, and thousands of cases remained unresolved. The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling affects the settlement dynamics for unresolved cases and future claims — Bayer may feel strengthened in its negotiating position for failure-to-warn cases, while plaintiffs’ counsel will focus on the non-preempted theories that still carry leverage.
For any individual case, the defendant identification is straightforward — Monsanto Company is the manufacturer, and Bayer AG is the parent. But the corporate structure also includes subsidiaries involved in distribution, marketing, and research, any of which may be named depending on the theory of liability and the jurisdiction. Naming the correct entities is foundational work that happens at intake.
The MDL and Where Your Case Fits
The federal Roundup litigation is consolidated in the Northern District of California as MDL-2741 — In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation — before Judge Vince Chhabria. As of mid-2026, approximately 3,900 actions were pending in the MDL. An MDL is not a class action — each plaintiff retains their own individual case. The MDL centralizes pretrial proceedings (motion practice, discovery, expert challenges, and bellwether trial selection) so that common issues are handled efficiently. After pretrial proceedings, individual cases may be remanded to their original federal courts for trial, or they may proceed to trial within the MDL.
The Roundup MDL has gone through bellwether trials — test cases selected to go to trial first, whose outcomes help both sides evaluate settlement value. The bellwether results were mixed. Some produced significant plaintiff verdicts. Several of those verdicts were later reduced on appeal through remittitur — the process by which an appellate court finds a jury award excessive and reduces it. We do not recite specific verdict dollar figures here because each one carries its own procedural history, and some were reduced or reversed. The honest characterization is that early Roundup trials showed juries were willing to hold Monsanto accountable, but the appellate process trimmed several of the headline numbers.
The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling reshapes the MDL. Cases that were built primarily on failure-to-warn theories now face preemption challenges. The MDL court will have to address how the ruling applies to the pending cases — which claims survive, which must be dismissed, and how the remaining cases should proceed. Plaintiffs’ counsel will move to amend complaints to add or emphasize non-preempted theories. Bayer’s counsel will move to dismiss preempted claims. This process will take time, and during that time, your case — if you have one — needs to be in the hands of lawyers who understand the shifting landscape.
If you have not yet filed a claim, the MDL’s existence means there is an established federal framework for Roundup cases. But you can also file in state court, depending on your jurisdiction and the specifics of your case. The choice of forum is a strategic decision that depends on your state’s law, the theories you are pleading, and the preemption landscape after the ruling. This is not a decision to make alone.
The Evidence Clock: What Exists and How Fast It Disappears
A Roundup cancer case is built from several categories of evidence, and each has its own clock.
Your Roundup use history. The foundation of any Roundup case is proving you used the product — and how much, how often, and for how long. This evidence comes from purchase records (credit card statements, store receipts, garden-center loyalty programs), employment records (if you used Roundup professionally as a landscaper, farmer, groundskeeper, or parks employee), testimony from family members or coworkers who saw you use it, and photographs showing Roundup bottles in your garage or shed. Purchase records from large retailers are often retained for years, but not indefinitely. If you used Roundup years or decades ago, direct purchase evidence may no longer exist — which is why your own documented history (a written timeline of when, where, and how you used it) becomes critical.
Your medical records. The proof of your injury — non-Hodgkin lymphoma — lives in your medical chart. The diagnostic biopsy report, the pathology report identifying the subtype, the staging scans, the treatment records, the chemotherapy administration logs, the hospital bills, the follow-up visits, and any recurrence records. These records are maintained by your treating institutions, but hospital and clinic record-retention periods vary — adult medical records are commonly retained for 7 to 10 years, though state law sets the floor. If you were diagnosed years ago, your records may still exist, but you should not assume they will be there forever. Request and preserve your complete medical file now.
Internal Monsanto documents. The discovery process in the Roundup MDL produced a massive trove of internal Monsanto documents — emails, memos, internal scientific assessments, and communications with regulators. These documents have been used to show what Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s potential cancer risk and when it knew it. Some of these documents are public; others remain under protective orders. Your lawyer’s access to this document trove — through the MDL or through independent discovery — is one of the most powerful tools in your case.
Expert evidence. Your case requires expert testimony on two levels: general causation (does glyphosate cause NHL in humans?) and specific causation (did glyphosate cause YOUR NHL?). Your experts will include a toxicologist or epidemiologist for general causation and a treating oncologist or hematologist for specific causation. The defense will challenge your experts under the Daubert standard, which tests whether expert testimony is based on reliable scientific methodology. The preemption ruling does not change the Daubert fight — it changes which legal theories the expert testimony supports.
The evidence clock means this: every day you wait, purchase records fade further, memories degrade, and the window to build a complete exposure history narrows. The preservation letter that freezes corporate documents goes out the day you hire a lawyer — not the day you decide you might eventually want to file. If you used Roundup and you have been diagnosed with NHL, the single most important step is calling a lawyer now so that evidence preservation begins immediately.
The Insurance and Settlement Reality
Bayer is not an underinsured small contractor. It is one of the largest pharmaceutical and agricultural-chemical companies in the world, with annual revenue exceeding $50 billion and a balance sheet that can absorb significant liability. When you sue Monsanto/Bayer over Roundup, you are suing a company with the resources to pay a full judgment — the question is not whether the money exists, but whether your legal theory survives preemption and whether your proof is strong enough to force a settlement or win at trial.
Bayer’s approach to Roundup liability has evolved. In 2020, the company announced a settlement framework reportedly valued at approximately $10 billion, intended to resolve the bulk of then-existing cases. That framework included payments to plaintiffs who had already filed cases and a separate fund for future claims. But not every plaintiff opted in. Some held out for individual resolution. And the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling changes the calculus for both sides: Bayer may be less willing to settle failure-to-warn cases that are now preempted, while plaintiffs’ counsel will push harder on non-preempted theories that still carry trial risk for the company.
For an individual plaintiff, the settlement value of a Roundup case depends on the same factors that govern any product-liability mass tort: the strength of the exposure evidence, the specificity of the cancer diagnosis, the severity of the harm (including treatment costs, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and whether the disease is in remission or active), the legal theories that survive preemption, the jurisdiction and its tort laws, and the bellwether verdict landscape that shapes both sides’ expectations.
Cases involving wrongful death — where the NHL patient has died — carry their own damages structure. Wrongful-death damages vary by state and may include the financial support the decedent would have provided, the loss of companionship and guidance, funeral costs, and the decedent’s own pain and suffering before death (through a survival action). If your loved one used Roundup, developed NHL, and died, the wrongful-death claim is a separate cause of action with its own beneficiaries and its own damages. Our wrongful death practice handles these cases, and we can evaluate whether both a personal-injury and a wrongful-death theory apply to your family’s situation.
The Defense Playbook: What Bayer’s Lawyers Will Do
Bayer and Monsanto have been defended by some of the most sophisticated product-liability defense firms in the country. After the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling, their playbook has shifted but not fundamentally changed. Here are the moves you should expect, and how each one is countered.
Play 1: The preemption motion. Bayer will move to dismiss any failure-to-warn claim in your complaint, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling that FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when EPA did not require a cancer warning. The counter is to plead non-preempted theories — design defect, negligent testing, fraudulent concealment — that do not seek to impose a different label. The complaint must be built from the ground up to avoid the preemption wall, which is why the drafting matters enormously.
Play 2: The general-causation challenge. Bayer will argue that the scientific evidence does not establish that glyphosate causes NHL in humans. They will point to the EPA’s conclusion, to studies they say show no association, and to the inconsistencies in the epidemiological literature. The counter is the IARC Group 2A classification, the peer-reviewed studies showing elevated NHL risk in heavily exposed populations, the mechanistic evidence of genotoxicity, and qualified experts who can tie the science to the specific mechanisms by which NHL develops.
Play 3: The specific-causation challenge. Bayer will argue that even if glyphosate can cause NHL in some people, it did not cause YOUR NHL. NHL has many known and suspected causes — immune suppression, certain infections, family history, age, and other chemical exposures. The defense will point to every alternative explanation in your medical history. The counter is dose reconstruction — establishing how much glyphosate you were exposed to, over how long, through what routes — combined with an exposure history that rules out or minimizes alternative causes, and expert testimony tying your specific exposure level to your specific cancer.
Play 4: The statute-of-limitations defense. Bayer will argue that you waited too long. They may point to the IARC classification in 2015 and argue that you “should have known” about the possible Roundup-NHL connection years before you filed. The counter is the discovery rule — the principle that in toxic-exposure cases, the clock does not start when the scientific community publishes a study; it starts when YOU discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, that you had an injury and that a specific exposure caused it.
“In actions involving latent injury or disease, the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff has discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury and its cause.”
That doctrine — the discovery rule for latent disease — is what keeps many Roundup cases alive despite years or decades between exposure and diagnosis. If you were diagnosed with NHL in 2022 and only learned in 2023 that Roundup might be connected to your cancer, the clock may have started in 2023, not in 2015 when IARC published its classification. But this rule varies by state, and some states impose an outer deadline (a statute of repose) that can cut off a claim regardless of when you discovered the connection. This is why you need a lawyer to evaluate the specific deadline in your state — it is not a question you can answer with a Google search.
Play 5: The Daubert challenge. Bayer will try to exclude your expert witnesses under the Daubert standard, arguing that their methodology is unreliable or their conclusions are not grounded in accepted science. The counter is retaining experts with strong credentials, peer-reviewed methodology, and opinions that are tied to the specific facts of your case — not generic testimony that any exposure caused any cancer.
The Proof Story: How a Roundup Case Is Built
Here is how a Roundup case is actually built, from the day you call to the day a number is on the table.
Week one: intake and preservation. The first conversation is free and confidential. We gather the basic facts: when you used Roundup, how you used it, how often, for how many years, what your diagnosis is, when you were diagnosed, and whether you have ever connected the two before. If the facts support a case, the first formal step is a preservation letter — a written demand to Monsanto/Bayer and any relevant third parties (retailers, employers, distributors) ordering them to preserve all documents related to glyphosate, Roundup, cancer research, internal communications, and regulatory submissions. This letter creates a legal duty to preserve evidence. If the company destroys documents after receiving the letter, the court can impose sanctions — including telling the jury they may assume the destroyed evidence was harmful to the company.
Weeks two through eight: record collection. We pull your complete medical file — the biopsy report, the pathology report, the staging scans, the treatment records, the bills, the follow-up notes. We reconstruct your exposure history: purchase records, employment records, testimony from people who saw you use Roundup, photographs of product containers. We build a timeline that connects your exposure to your diagnosis.
Months two through six: expert development. We retain the experts your case needs. A toxicologist or epidemiologist for general causation — to testify that glyphosate can cause NHL in humans. A treating oncologist or hematologist for specific causation — to testify that glyphosate caused your specific NHL. A forensic economist for the damages calculation — to project your lifetime medical costs, lost earning capacity, and the present value of your future losses. A life-care planner if your treatment is ongoing — to itemize every future medical need and its cost.
Months six through twelve: discovery and motions. Written discovery goes to the defendant — interrogatories, document requests, requests for admission. Depositions follow — of the corporate representatives who can speak to what Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s cancer potential, of the defense experts, and of you (the plaintiff). The defense deploys its playbook: preemption motions, Daubert challenges, summary-judgment motions. We respond to each.
Year one and beyond: resolution. Some cases settle during discovery or after a motion ruling. Others proceed to trial. The MDL’s bellwether results and the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling shape both sides’ evaluation of settlement value. If your case goes to trial, the jury hears the evidence, the experts, the internal documents, and the arguments — and decides whether glyphosate caused your cancer and what it is worth.
Your First Steps: What to Do Now
If you used Roundup and you have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma — or if someone you love used Roundup and died of NHL — here is what you should do, and what you should not do.
Do this:
Write down everything you can remember about your Roundup use. What product did you use — concentrate, ready-to-use, professional grade? Where did you buy it? How often did you use it — weekly, monthly, seasonally? How many years did you use it? Did you spray it yourself or did someone else spray it around you? Were you using it at home, at work, on a farm, at a school, at a park? Write this down now, while the memory is as fresh as it will ever be.
Gather your medical records. Request your complete file from every treating institution — the hospital where you were diagnosed, the oncology practice where you received chemotherapy, the radiation center, the surgery center. Get the pathology report, the staging scans, the treatment summaries, and the bills.
Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free and confidential. We will evaluate your exposure history, your diagnosis, your state’s statute of limitations, and which legal theories may survive the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling. If we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you. If we are, we will explain exactly what happens next and what it costs — which is nothing unless we win.
Do not do this:
Do not sign anything from Monsanto, Bayer, or any representative of the company or their insurers. Do not give a recorded statement to anyone about your Roundup use or your cancer. Do not post about your case on social media — defense investigators monitor plaintiff’s social media accounts for material they can use to undermine the case. Do not assume the Supreme Court ruling killed your case without talking to a lawyer who can evaluate the non-preempted theories. Do not wait — the statute of limitations is running, and the evidence is aging.
What a Roundup Cancer Case Is Worth
We cannot tell you what your case is worth without reviewing your specific facts, because the value of a Roundup case depends on variables that are unique to you. But we can tell you what goes into the calculation, so you understand what a full evaluation looks like.
Economic damages — the losses that can be measured in dollars. Past medical bills: the cost of your biopsy, your imaging, your chemotherapy, your radiation, your surgeries, your hospital stays, your medications, your follow-up visits. Future medical costs: the cost of ongoing treatment, monitoring for recurrence, and any future therapies your cancer may require. Past lost wages: the income you lost during treatment and recovery. Future lost earning capacity: the income you will not earn because your cancer, your treatment, or its aftereffects reduced your ability to work. Household services: the value of the work you can no longer do around the home because of your illness.
Non-economic damages — the human losses that no receipt can measure. Physical pain and suffering: the pain of the disease, the pain of the treatment, the pain of the side effects. Emotional distress: the fear, the anxiety, the depression that comes with a cancer diagnosis and the knowledge that a product you trusted may have caused it. Loss of quality of life: the activities you can no longer do, the relationships that changed, the life you planned that no longer looks the way you expected. Disfigurement: if treatment left visible scars or changes.
Punitive damages — damages designed to punish the defendant for particularly bad conduct, not just to compensate the plaintiff. Whether punitive damages are available depends on your state’s law and on the conduct proven. Internal Monsanto documents produced in the MDL — showing internal awareness of potential cancer risk, discussions about influencing the scientific literature, and communications about regulatory strategy — are the kind of evidence that supports a punitive-damages argument. Whether punitive damages survive the preemption ruling depends on the theory they are attached to and your state’s law.
Wrongful-death damages — if the NHL patient has died. These damages belong to the surviving family members and may include the financial support the decedent would have provided, the loss of the decedent’s companionship and guidance, funeral and burial costs, and — through a survival action — the decedent’s own pain and suffering between injury and death. The beneficiaries who may recover, and the damages available, are set by each state’s wrongful-death statute.
The settlement framework Bayer announced in 2020 reportedly valued individual Roundup claims based on factors including the subtype and stage of NHL, the strength of the exposure evidence, the age of the plaintiff, and whether the case had been filed. Cases with strong exposure histories and clear diagnoses carried higher value. Cases with weaker exposure evidence or ambiguous diagnostic histories carried lower value. The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling may compress the value of cases built solely on failure-to-warn theories, while cases built on non-preempted theories — design defect, fraud, negligent testing — may retain more of their value.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. We can give you an honest evaluation of your case’s value only after reviewing your records and your exposure history.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still sue Monsanto after the Supreme Court ruling?
Yes — but the legal theories available to you have changed. The Supreme Court ruled that FIFRA preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims tied to the Roundup label. That means the argument “Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the bottle” is likely no longer available as a standalone theory in many jurisdictions. But other theories — including design defect, negligent testing, and fraudulent concealment — may still survive because they do not require a different label. Whether your specific case has a viable path depends on your state’s law, your exposure history, and how your case is pleaded. Call us for a free evaluation.
What if I already filed a Roundup lawsuit?
If your case is already filed, your lawyer should be evaluating how the preemption ruling affects your specific claims. Cases pleaded primarily on failure-to-warn theories may face dismissal motions. Cases that include non-preempted theories may survive, though they may need to be amended to emphasize those theories. If your case is in the MDL, Judge Chhabria’s court will address how the ruling applies to the consolidated docket. If your case is in state court, the application may depend on your state’s law and how your appellate courts interpret the ruling. Do not assume your case is dead — talk to your lawyer about what theories remain.
How long do I have to file a Roundup cancer claim?
The statute of limitations varies by state. Personal-injury deadlines typically range from one to six years, and wrongful-death deadlines are often shorter. In toxic-exposure cases, most states apply a discovery rule — the clock starts when you discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, both your injury and its cause. If you were diagnosed with NHL years ago but only recently learned that Roundup might be connected to your cancer, the clock may have started when you made that connection, not when you were diagnosed. Some states also have a statute of repose — an outer deadline that can cut off a claim regardless of when you discovered the connection. You need a lawyer to evaluate the specific deadline in your state. This is not something to guess about.
What kind of cancer is linked to Roundup?
The primary cancer linked to Roundup (glyphosate) in the litigation is non-Hodgkin lymphoma — a cancer of the lymphatic system. The IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, and the epidemiological evidence in the litigation has focused on NHL. Some studies have also examined possible links to other cancers, but NHL is the injury at the center of the Roundup MDL and the bellwether trials. If you were diagnosed with NHL and you used Roundup regularly, you should talk to a lawyer about whether your case may qualify.
How do I prove I used Roundup?
Proof of Roundup use comes from several sources: purchase records (credit card statements, store receipts, loyalty-program records), employment records (if you used Roundup professionally), photographs of Roundup containers in your home or workplace, testimony from family members or coworkers who saw you use the product, and your own detailed written account of when, where, and how you used it. The stronger and more specific your exposure evidence — the brand, the concentration, the frequency, the duration, the application method — the stronger your case. Even if you do not have purchase receipts from years ago, a detailed personal history combined with corroborating testimony can build a strong exposure case.
What if my loved one died from non-Hodgkin lymphoma?
If your family member used Roundup, developed NHL, and died, you may have a wrongful-death claim. Wrongful-death damages vary by state but may include the financial support the person would have provided, the loss of their companionship and guidance, funeral costs, and — through a survival action — the person’s own pain and suffering before death. The deadline for filing a wrongful-death claim is often shorter than the personal-injury deadline, so if your loved one has died, you should not wait to call. Our wrongful death practice can evaluate your family’s situation.
Will the Supreme Court ruling affect cases that already settled?
Generally, no. A settlement that has been finalized and paid is a closed contract. The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling affects pending cases and future cases, not cases that have already resolved. If your case settled and you received payment, the ruling does not reopen or unwind that settlement. If your case was filed but has not yet settled or gone to trial, the ruling may affect which claims can proceed.
How much is a Roundup cancer case worth?
We cannot give you a number without reviewing your specific facts. The value of a Roundup case depends on the subtype and stage of your NHL, your treatment costs, your prognosis, your lost earnings and earning capacity, your pain and suffering, the strength of your exposure evidence, the legal theories that survive preemption, your state’s tort law (including any damage caps), and the bellwether verdict landscape. Bayer’s 2020 settlement framework reportedly valued claims based on these factors. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. We can give you an honest evaluation after reviewing your records.
Do I need a lawyer, or can I handle this myself?
You need a lawyer. The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling has made Roundup litigation more legally complex, not less. The failure-to-warn theory that powered the early cases is now preempted. Surviving theories — design defect, negligent testing, fraudulent concealment — require sophisticated pleading, expert testimony, and access to the internal corporate documents produced in the MDL. Monsanto and Bayer are defended by some of the best product-liability lawyers in the country. This is not a case you can file pro se and expect to win. The good news is that we work on contingency — you pay nothing unless we win. How contingency fees work is explained in plain language on our site.
What if I used a generic glyphosate product, not the Roundup brand?
The Roundup litigation has focused on Monsanto’s Roundup-branded products, but glyphosate is sold under many brand names and as generic products. Whether a claim against a different manufacturer is viable depends on that manufacturer’s relationship to Monsanto, the product’s registration history, and the specific exposure evidence. If you used a glyphosate product that was not Roundup-branded, tell us — the facts of your exposure matter, and we can evaluate whether your case has a path.
Why Attorney911
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a Houston-based trial firm that takes toxic-exposure, product-liability, and catastrophic-injury cases. Our approach to a Roundup case is built on the understanding that the legal terrain just shifted, and the cases that survive are the ones built by lawyers who understand the difference between a preempted theory and a viable one.
Ralph Manginello is our Managing Partner — 27+ years of trial practice, admitted to Texas in 1998 and to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he reads documents the way a reporter reads them — looking for the sentence the other side wishes had never been written. That instinct matters in a Roundup case, where the internal Monsanto documents produced in discovery are often the most powerful evidence in the file. Ralph is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Houston Bar Association, and the Trial Lawyers Achievement Association — Million Dollar Member.
Lupe Peña is our Associate Attorney — admitted to Texas in 2012, admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Before he joined our side of the table, Lupe worked inside a national insurance-defense firm. He sat in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like you. He knows how the other side values a claim, how they pick their experts, and how they structure their delays — because he used to do it. Now he uses that knowledge for injured clients. Lupe is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
Our toxic tort practice is built for cases where a corporation put a product into the world, people got sick, and the company wants to hide behind regulatory complexity. The Supreme Court’s FIFRA preemption ruling is exactly that kind of complexity — and we are built to work through it.
We work on contingency. That means you pay nothing out of pocket. We advance the costs of building the case — the expert fees, the record fees, the filing fees. We are paid only if we recover money for you — 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. If we do not win, you owe us nothing for our time. Free consultation. 24/7 live staff — not an answering service. Hablamos Español.
The Supreme Court ruling changed the map. It did not erase your rights. The question is whether your case is built by someone who knows which road still leads to the courthouse. Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The call is free. The conversation is confidential. And the clock on your case is running whether you call or not — so call today.