The Supreme Court Ruled Against Roundup Plaintiffs — But Your Case Is Not Dead
You heard the news. The Supreme Court ruled for Bayer in June 2026. Now you are sitting at a kitchen table or in a hospital waiting room, wondering whether the lawsuit you were counting on — or the settlement you were waiting for — just evaporated. The phone has been quiet. The lawyer you spoke to months ago may have called, or may not have. And the headline you read said something about preemption and warning labels, and you do not know what that means for the cancer in your body or the person you lost.
Here is what we can tell you right now, before anything else: the litigation is not over. It is not winding down. There are roughly 61,000 active Roundup lawsuits still pending as of July 2026. Bayer has resolved more than 100,000 claims for approximately $11 billion, but the remaining cases — your case — are still very much alive. What the Supreme Court did was take away one legal theory. It did not take away your right to sue. It did not say Roundup is safe. It did not say glyphosate does not cause cancer. And it did not close the courthouse door.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort and product liability cases with the same intensity we bring to every catastrophic-injury case that walks through our door. This page is legal information, not legal advice — but it is the most complete picture we can give you of where the Roundup litigation stands today, what the Supreme Court ruling actually did, what claims survive, what the settlement means for you, and what to do next. Calling us is free. We do not get paid unless we win your case.
What the Supreme Court Actually Decided — and What It Did Not Touch
On June 25, 2026, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Bayer. The holding was specific: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — known as FIFRA, the federal law that governs pesticide registration and labeling — preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims that are based on the absence of a cancer warning on Roundup’s EPA-approved label. The Court threw out a $1.25 million verdict for a Missouri plaintiff who alleged Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, finding that once the EPA approves a pesticide label, states cannot impose additional or different labeling requirements through tort law.
That is what the ruling said. Now here is what it did not say — and this distinction is the entire case.
The ruling addresses one thing: the label. It says you cannot sue Monsanto under state law for failing to put a cancer warning on the bottle when the EPA approved the bottle without one. That is the failure-to-warn theory tied to labeling, and it is now preempted nationwide.
But the ruling does not reach the other theories that have driven this litigation from the beginning. It does not erase claims that Monsanto defectively designed Roundup — that the product itself is inherently dangerous because glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties make it unreasonably dangerous. It does not erase negligence claims — that Monsanto failed to exercise reasonable care in researching, testing, marketing, and selling a product it had reason to suspect caused cancer. It does not erase claims for misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment. And it does not reach non-label warning theories — claims based on what Monsanto said in advertising, promotional materials, safety data sheets, or communications with regulators that went beyond the label itself.
Bayer is already trying to convince the federal court that the remaining claims are “just repackaged warning claims” and that the entire federal MDL should be dismantled. At a July 2026 status conference before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria — the judge overseeing the federal Roundup multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of California, where more than 4,000 cases remain consolidated — Bayer is expected to argue that the Supreme Court ruling leaves no real reason for the MDL to continue.
Judge Chhabria “called the parties’ initial responses unsatisfying and told them to be ready to address complicated legal questions without assuming that every case will be dismissed or that every case will move forward.”
That is the signal: the judge is not accepting Bayer’s broadest argument. He is not accepting that the Supreme Court ruling ends everything. And he is not accepting that every case survives untouched. He wants the complicated legal questions addressed honestly — which is exactly what we intend to do.
The generalist reads the headline “Supreme Court rules for Bayer” and tells the client the case is dead. That is wrong. The ruling is a serious blow — we will not pretend it is not — but it eliminated one legal theory, not the entire litigation. Design defect and negligence are still alive, still viable, and still capable of producing significant recoveries. The case has to be built differently now, but it can still be built.
The Surviving Theories: Design Defect and Negligence
The Supreme Court took away the label. It did not take away the product. And that distinction is where the next phase of this litigation lives.
Design defect is the theory that Roundup is inherently dangerous by design — that glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties make the product unreasonably dangerous, and that a safer formulation existed or the product should not have been marketed for residential use at all. This theory is not preempted by the Supreme Court ruling. To prove it, we must show that the risks of Roundup’s design outweigh its utility and that a reasonable alternative design was feasible — whether that means a different active ingredient, a different formulation, or withdrawal from the consumer market entirely. The evidence for this theory lives in Monsanto’s own internal research files, in the scientific literature linking glyphosate to NHL, and in the company’s decisions about what to do with the safety signals it was seeing.
Negligence is the theory that Monsanto failed to exercise reasonable care in researching, testing, marketing, and selling Roundup despite knowledge of its potential carcinogenicity. This encompasses the failure to conduct adequate long-term studies, the disregard of internal scientific signals, and the continued aggressive marketing of a product the company had reason to suspect was causing cancer. Negligence is not preempted by the FIFRA labeling ruling. The evidence here is devastating when it is available — internal emails, ghostwritten scientific papers, regulatory submission strategies, and communications showing corporate acknowledgment of cancer risk while publicly denying it.
Non-label warning theories may also survive. The Supreme Court ruling addresses the label — the printed warning on the bottle that the EPA approved. It does not necessarily reach claims based on what Monsanto said elsewhere: in advertising campaigns, in promotional materials directed at farmers and consumers, in safety data sheets, or in communications with the scientific community. If Monsanto made affirmative misrepresentations about Roundup’s safety beyond the label, those claims may not be preempted.
Punitive damages remain available under negligence and design-defect theories. The preemption ruling does not eliminate punitive exposure. The allegations that Monsanto manipulated scientific research, ghostwrote scientific papers, and internally acknowledged cancer risks while publicly denying them — if proven — are exactly the kind of conduct that puts punitive damages in front of a jury. Some states cap punitive damages, and those caps vary — but many states have no caps in product liability cases involving corporate misconduct, which is exactly what produced the large Roundup verdicts before the Supreme Court ruling.
The $7.25 Billion Settlement: What It Actually Means for You
In February 2026, Bayer announced a proposed $7.25 billion class settlement designed to resolve both current and future Roundup cancer claims. The settlement — filed as King v. Monsanto in Missouri state court — received preliminary approval there. On the surface, $7.25 billion sounds like a massive payout. The details tell a different story.
The settlement requires near-universal participation. Bayer has explicitly reserved the right to walk away if too many plaintiffs opt out. The company is not committing to this deal unless it resolves nearly all claims. That gives Bayer enormous leverage and creates uncertainty for every individual plaintiff. The opt-out deadline was June 4, 2026 — it has passed for existing class members. But if you are newly diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of Roundup exposure, you are not bound by that deadline. You can still file an individual lawsuit.
The settlement covers future claims — people who have not yet been diagnosed but may develop NHL years from now. That is good news in one sense, but it means the settlement pot must stretch across an unknown number of future claimants. The $7.25 billion is not split among 61,000 people; it is split among everyone who has a claim now and everyone who develops one for decades to come.
The settlement uses a point-scoring system that ranks cases into tiers based on the strength of claims and severity of injuries. Case-specific factors — the type of cancer, treatment outcome, the victim’s age, and estimated earnings capacity — are assigned point scores. Individual cases are placed into settlement tiers based on those scores, and cases with higher scores get a bigger payout. Cases with lower scores result in much smaller payouts. The system is designed to be efficient, which also means it is designed to pay less to the people at the margins — particularly residential users with severe NHL presentations who may not score well on the exposure-duration metrics that favor agricultural and occupational users.
The settlement faces serious resistance. More than 100 class members and a dozen health care plans have filed objections ahead of the July 9, 2026 final approval hearing. The objections raise concerns about inadequate notice, a deliberately difficult opt-out process, jurisdictional problems, inconsistent treatment of class members, and a $675 million attorney fee request. The concern that may matter most to you is this: the opt-out process was so complicated that even people who clearly tried to opt out had their forms rejected for technical deficiencies. A settlement that makes it hard to leave is a settlement designed to keep you in at a price the company set, not a price your case deserves.
Health care plans have objected that the release may improperly wipe out their lien and subrogation rights, which could create another fight over who gets paid from the settlement fund. And the biggest concern, from a justice perspective, is that the settlement may bind future claimants too cheaply — people who were exposed to Roundup but have not yet been diagnosed with NHL. A person who develops cancer years from now could be giving up the right to bring an individual lawsuit without fully appreciating what they are losing.
The settlement is not sailing through cleanly. Will the deal still get done? Probably. But the number and substance of the objections show that this is not a consensus resolution — it is a corporate cleanup, and the people paying for the cleanup are the ones the product hurt.
Monsanto and Bayer: The Corporate Defendant Behind Roundup
Roundup is manufactured by Monsanto Company, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion — and with that acquisition, Bayer assumed the entire weight of Roundup litigation responsibility. What began with a single California jury handing down a $289 million verdict seven years ago has evolved into one of the most significant product liability lawsuits in U.S. history. Bayer has spent the years since trying to contain the fallout, fighting thousands of cases in court, securing multi-billion-dollar settlements, and advancing legal theories — including the FIFRA preemption argument that reached the Supreme Court — to shield itself from future claims.
The corporate structure matters. Monsanto is the entity that designed, tested, marketed, and distributed Roundup. Bayer is the deep-pocket German parent with the market capitalization to support multi-billion-dollar settlement capacity. When you sue, you are suing a company that has already paid out roughly $11 billion to resolve more than 100,000 claims — a company that knows exactly how much these cases cost and has built its entire post-acquisition strategy around limiting that cost.
The internal corporate record is where the punitive damages case lives. Discovery in the MDL has already produced documents showing that Monsanto manipulated scientific research, ghostwrote scientific papers, and internally acknowledged cancer risks while publicly denying them. Those documents — internal emails, regulatory submission drafts, marketing strategy documents, and communications about the IARC classification — are the core of the design-defect and negligence case that survives the Supreme Court ruling. Much of this material has been produced in MDL proceedings, but cataloging and organizing it for individual use requires lead time, and some documents remain under seal or protective orders.
Bayer’s strategy is transparent: use the Supreme Court ruling to pressure remaining plaintiffs into the class settlement at lower valuations, argue to the MDL court that all surviving claims are just repackaged warning claims, and convert a narrow preemption ruling into a broad knockout punch. The first move is leverage. The second is legal argument. The third is the goal. Our job is to make sure none of the three works as planned.
The Science: Glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
The Supreme Court ruling is about law — what claims are preempted and what claims survive. It is not about science. The scientific debate over whether glyphosate causes cancer is unchanged by the ruling, and the evidence on both sides remains admissible in court.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015, while the EPA has maintained that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” — this regulatory divergence is central to the causation debate and remains admissible as evidence notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling.
That divergence — between the world’s leading cancer research agency and the U.S. environmental regulator — is the heart of the causation case. IARC’s Group 2A classification means there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals. The EPA’s position is that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic. A jury gets to hear both positions. The Supreme Court did not change that.
The disease at the center of every Roundup case is non-Hodgkin lymphoma — a cancer of the lymphatic system that requires chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, and sometimes stem cell transplants. NHL is not one disease; it is a family of more than 70 subtypes, ranging from indolent (slow-growing) to highly aggressive. The subtype matters enormously — both for the patient’s prognosis and for the settlement tier or trial value of the case.
Economic damages in an NHL case include past and future medical treatment, which can exceed hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for aggressive subtypes requiring stem cell transplants. They include lost wages and diminished earning capacity — the paycheck that stopped, the career that ended, the retirement that evaporated. And they include out-of-pocket costs that families absorb without ever being asked: the travel to treatment, the co-pays, the home modifications, the care that family members provide for free because there is no one else to do it.
Non-economic damages encompass the physical pain, the emotional distress, the loss of quality of life, and the psychological toll of a cancer diagnosis and treatment regime. For a parent who cannot pick up their child during chemotherapy, for a worker who loses their identity along with their health, for a spouse who watches the person they love disappear into illness — these losses have no receipt and no invoice, and they are real.
For deceased plaintiffs, survival actions preserve the damages the victim would have been entitled to before death — the pain, the medical bills, the lost wages. Wrongful death claims compensate dependents for the loss of financial support, companionship, guidance, and consortium. If your loved one used Roundup for years and died from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, both tracks may be available — but the deadlines are different and shorter in many states, and waiting is the single most dangerous thing a grieving family can do.
Life-care planning for NHL survivors must account for recurrence risk, secondary malignancies caused by the treatment itself, long-term immunosuppression, and ongoing surveillance imaging and bloodwork. A person who survives NHL does not return to baseline — they enter a new reality of monitoring, anxiety, and medical expense that can stretch for decades. A proper life-care plan prices that reality year by year, and a forensic economist reduces it to present value. The adjuster’s first offer is a fraction of that number, every time.
The defense’s causation attack is predictable: they will argue that NHL is idiopathic — that most cases have no known cause, and that the plaintiff cannot prove their particular cancer came from Roundup rather than from some other exposure, genetic predisposition, or random chance. The counter is dose reconstruction from documented exposure history, the IARC Group 2A classification, the epidemiological studies linking glyphosate to NHL, and expert testimony on specific causation linking the plaintiff’s exposure to their specific NHL subtype. This fight is not new — it has been the central battleground in every Roundup case — and the Supreme Court ruling did not change the rules of that fight.
The Evidence Clock: What Exists, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Disappears
Every Roundup case lives or dies on evidence. The Supreme Court ruling changed which legal theories are available, but it did not change what proof is needed or how fast that proof can vanish. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally die.
Your medical records — pathology reports documenting the NHL diagnosis, treatment history, oncologist opinions, imaging, and bloodwork — establish the specific causation link between Roundup exposure and your cancer, and they document the severity of your injury for settlement tier scoring or trial. These are ongoing and generally durable, but pathology slides and diagnostic imaging should be obtained immediately. Oncologist records should be compiled before any settlement submission or expert disclosure deadline. The hospital controls these records, and while they are retained for years, requesting them early prevents gaps and ensures completeness.
Roundup purchase and usage documentation — receipts, product containers, home and garden store records, agricultural use logs — proves the exposure duration, frequency, and dose that forms the foundation of causation. This evidence distinguishes residential users from occupational and agricultural users with higher exposure. This is the most perishable evidence in your case. Product containers degrade or are discarded. Store purchase records are purged on rolling retention cycles. Witness memories of your usage patterns fade within months. This is the clock that drives urgency — every day you wait, the proof of what you were exposed to gets weaker.
Internal Monsanto and Bayer corporate documents — scientific research, internal emails, ghostwriting evidence, regulatory submission drafts, marketing strategy documents — are the core of the punitive damages case and the design-defect and negligence liability. Much has already been produced in MDL discovery, but cataloging and organizing it for individual use requires lead time. Some documents remain under seal or protective orders. These are held by the defendant and by the MDL court. Your counsel obtains them through coordination with MDL counsel or direct subpoena.
EPA registration documents, label approval history, and FIFRA compliance correspondence establish the regulatory framework for the preemption defense and may reveal what Monsanto told — or did not tell — the EPA about cancer signals. These are relevant to non-label warning theories and negligence claims. Federal records are retained, but FOIA requests take months. Pre-suit litigation holds should be issued early.
The IARC monograph and independent epidemiological studies on the glyphosate-NHL association provide the general causation foundation — the scientific literature linking glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This is essential for expert testimony on specific causation. Published scientific literature is permanent, but expert report deadlines require early literature compilation and expert retention.
Witness statements from family members, coworkers, or neighbors regarding your Roundup usage corroborate the exposure history when purchase records are unavailable. They establish duration and frequency of use for causation modeling. These are high-priority perishables — memories fade, witnesses relocate, and statements should be taken within weeks of case intake.
The fastest-dying evidence drives the urgency. Product containers, store records, and witness memories are the evidence that disappears first. The day you call is the day the preservation letter goes out — freezing the records, demanding the documents, and locking down the proof before it vanishes. That is not a marketing line. That is how these cases are actually built.
Bayer’s Playbook: What the Company Is Doing Right Now
Bayer has a strategy, and it is running that strategy right now, on every remaining plaintiff, including you. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm before he joined this side of the table — he sat in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like you. He knows the playbook because he used to run it. Here is what Bayer is doing, and here is the counter to each play.
Play 1: “The Supreme Court killed your case.” Bayer and its representatives are telling every remaining plaintiff that the Supreme Court ruling ended the litigation. The pressure is designed to push you into the lowest settlement tier or convince you to drop your claim entirely. The counter is the ruling itself: it eliminated one legal theory — label-based failure-to-warn — and left design defect, negligence, and non-label warning claims fully intact. The case is not dead. It has to be built differently, but it can still be built.
Play 2: The settlement pressure campaign. Bayer is using the Supreme Court ruling to amplify the urgency of the class settlement. The message is: take what we are offering, because things are only going to get worse for you. The settlement structure reinforces this — the opt-out deadline, the point system, the walk-away provision. The counter is individual case evaluation. The settlement averages approximately $110,000 to $120,000 per claimant across 61,000 to 65,000 cases, but tiered payouts create significant individual variance, and plaintiffs with the strongest cases and clearest exposure histories may benefit from individual litigation on surviving theories. You cannot know which is right for you without an honest evaluation of your specific case.
Play 3: “Your remaining claims are just repackized warning claims.” Bayer is telling Judge Chhabria that the entire MDL should be dismantled because the surviving negligence and design-defect claims are just failure-to-warn claims in disguise. The counter is the text of the ruling itself — it addresses the label. It does not reach claims that Monsanto defectively designed the product, acted negligently in testing and marketing it, misrepresented its safety, or failed to take reasonable steps apart from changing the label. Judge Chhabria has already signaled skepticism of both sides’ broadest positions. He is not rolling over for this argument.
Play 4: The complex opt-out trap. The settlement’s opt-out process was so complicated that even people who tried to opt out had their forms rejected for technical deficiencies. If you are in the class and your opt-out was rejected, you may be bound to a settlement tier that undervalues your case. The counter is to get help understanding your projected tier and your options immediately. If you are newly diagnosed and not yet in the class, you still have the right to file an individual lawsuit on the surviving theories.
Play 5: “You cannot prove Roundup caused your cancer.” The defense will argue that NHL is idiopathic — that most cases have no known cause — and that you cannot tie your specific cancer to Roundup rather than to genetics, lifestyle, or random chance. The counter is the IARC Group 2A classification, the epidemiological literature, your documented exposure history, dose reconstruction, and expert testimony on specific causation. This fight has been the central battleground in every Roundup case, and the Supreme Court ruling did not change the rules of engagement.
If you want to hear more about how to handle communications from the other side, Ralph Manginello breaks down what not to say to an insurance adjuster — and the same principles apply to communications from Bayer’s claims department or the settlement administrator. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not sign a release you do not understand. Do not accept a timeline the company set for its benefit.
What Your Case May Be Worth
Every Roundup case is different, and anyone who tells you a specific number without evaluating your individual facts is not giving you advice — they are giving you a sales pitch. What we can give you is the framework, honestly framed.
The proposed $7.25 billion class settlement, if approved, would average approximately $110,000 to $120,000 per claimant across 61,000 to 65,000 cases. But that average obscures enormous individual variance. The settlement’s point-scoring system factors in cancer subtype, treatment outcome, age, and earnings capacity to tier payouts. Cases with lower point scores — limited exposure evidence, older plaintiffs, shorter life expectancy, or weaker causation documentation — result in much smaller payouts, potentially in the $25,000 to $100,000 range. Cases with higher point scores — documented prolonged Roundup exposure, aggressive NHL subtypes requiring extensive treatment, younger plaintiffs with significant lost earnings — receive larger payouts.
Individual litigation on surviving theories tells a different story. Strong individual trial cases with documented prolonged Roundup exposure, an aggressive NHL subtype requiring extensive treatment, a younger plaintiff with significant lost earnings, and a viable design-defect or negligence theory post-SCOTUS could command $500,000 to $5,000,000 or more in the right venue with strong punitive evidence. The pre-SCOTUS trial record illustrates the ceiling: a $1.25 million Missouri verdict was thrown out by the Supreme Court on FIFRA preemption grounds, and a $289 million original California verdict was later reduced on appeal. Those numbers illustrate the potential — but they also illustrate the risk. The pre-SCOTUS verdicts that produced those figures relied heavily on the failure-to-warn theory that is now preempted. Post-SCOTUS verdicts will need to stand on design defect and negligence, and the first post-SCOTUS trials have not yet occurred.
The decision between the class settlement and individual litigation is the critical strategic juncture. The June 4, 2026 opt-out deadline has passed for existing class members. But plaintiffs with newly diagnosed NHL can still file individual lawsuits on surviving theories. The evaluation turns on four factors: the strength of your exposure evidence, the severity of your NHL subtype, the venue where your case would be filed, and the appellate risk of the surviving theories in that venue. This is not a decision to make alone, and it is not a decision to make based on a headline.
For a deeper discussion of how case value is actually built, Ralph explains how we determine what a personal injury case is worth. The principles are the same in a mass tort: the number is built from the medical records, the exposure history, the life-care plan, the lost earnings, and the conduct of the defendant — not from a settlement matrix the company designed to minimize its own payout.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The Statute of Limitations: How Long You Have
This is the clock that kills cases silently. Most people never know it is running until it has already run out.
State statutes of limitations for personal injury claims typically run two to four years from the date of injury or discovery. But for a latent disease like non-Hodgkin lymphoma caused by years of glyphosate exposure, the clock does not start on the day you were exposed to Roundup. It starts — in most states, under the discovery rule — when you knew or should have known that you had NHL and that your cancer was caused by Roundup exposure. For many plaintiffs, that date is the date of diagnosis, or the date a doctor first mentioned a possible connection to glyphosate, or the date they first learned about the Roundup litigation.
The discovery rule is the reason most Roundup plaintiffs still have time to file. But it is not unlimited. Some states impose an outer deadline — a statute of repose — that can cut off a claim even before discovery. The exact rule varies by state, and it is volatile: legislatures amend these deadlines, courts reinterpret them, and the law in your state today may not be the law that applied five years ago. We cannot tell you your specific deadline without knowing your state, your diagnosis date, and your exposure history. What we can tell you is this: waiting is the single most dangerous thing you can do. Every month you wait is a month closer to a deadline you may not know exists.
Wrongful death limitations periods are different and often shorter than personal injury periods. If your loved one died from NHL, the clock for a wrongful death claim typically starts on the date of death — not the date of diagnosis — and the window can be as short as one or two years in some states. Families who lose a loved one to Roundup-caused NHL and wait a year to “see what happens” with the settlement may discover they have lost the right to file entirely.
If you have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and you used Roundup for years — whether as a homeowner spraying weeds in your driveway, a landscaper working daily with the product, a farmer applying it across hundreds of acres, or a groundskeeper mixing and spraying it every week — the day you call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you. The preservation letter goes out. The medical records are ordered. The exposure history is documented. The expert witnesses are identified. Every one of those steps takes time, and the deadline does not extend to accommodate delay.
The First Steps: What to Do Now
If you are reading this page, you are either in the class settlement and trying to understand your position, or you are newly diagnosed and wondering if it is too late. Here is what to do in both situations.
If you are already in the class settlement:
The opt-out deadline of June 4, 2026 has passed. You should understand your projected tier and payout under the point system. Get your medical records — pathology reports, treatment history, oncologist opinions — compiled and organized. Document your Roundup usage history as completely as you can: when you used it, how often, how long, what products, where you purchased it. Save any product containers, receipts, or purchase records you still have. Identify witnesses — family members, coworkers, neighbors — who can corroborate your usage. Do not sign anything from the settlement administrator without understanding exactly what you are receiving and what rights you are giving up. And get an individual case evaluation to determine whether the settlement tier you are projected to receive fairly reflects the value of your case.
If you are newly diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of Roundup exposure:
It is not too late to file. New claims are being accepted regularly and the litigation remains very much alive. But the statute of limitations clock is running — in most states, it started when you were diagnosed or when you first connected your cancer to Roundup. Do these things now:
- Get your medical records in order — pathology reports confirming the NHL diagnosis, treatment records, oncologist opinions, and imaging.
- Document your Roundup usage — write down every detail you can remember about when, how often, how long, and what products you used. Go back year by year. Include the addresses where you used it.
- Save any physical evidence — product containers, old receipts, spray equipment, anything that documents what you used and when.
- Identify witnesses — family members, coworkers, neighbors who saw you using Roundup and can confirm the frequency and duration of use.
- Contact counsel immediately for an evaluation of your claim and a discussion of your options — the class settlement, individual litigation, or both.
- Do not give a recorded statement to anyone from Bayer, Monsanto, or the settlement administrator without speaking to a lawyer first.
- Do not sign a release, a waiver, or any document you do not fully understand.
The preservation letter goes out the day you call. That letter freezes the evidence — demands that product containers, purchase records, corporate documents, and any other proof be preserved before they can be legally destroyed. In a mass tort, the evidence does not sit in a tow yard waiting for someone to claim it. It sits in corporate filing systems, in store databases, and in the memories of people who watched you spray weeds every Saturday for a decade. All of it is on a clock, and the clock does not wait.
Why This Firm
Ralph P. Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. He is a journalist before he was a lawyer — a B.A. in Journalism and Public Relations from the University of Texas at Austin, then a J.D. from South Texas College of Law Houston. That background matters in a mass tort built on corporate documents and scientific literature. Ralph knows how to read a legal ruling and separate what it says from what the defendant says it says. He knows how to read a scientific study and identify what the company knew and when it knew it. And he knows how to tell that story to a jury in language they understand and remember. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and handles cases nationwide, working with local counsel where required.
Lupe Peña is a former insurance-defense attorney who spent years at a national defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows how corporate defendants value cases from the inside, how settlement point systems are designed to minimize payouts, and how the “your case is weak now” argument is deployed after an unfavorable ruling. He conducts full client consultations in Spanish, without an interpreter. If your family communicates in Spanish, your case is handled in Spanish from the first phone call to the final resolution.
We work on contingency. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The first call is free, and it is confidential. We have live staff answering the phone 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — not an answering service, not a call center, not a robot. When you call 1-888-ATTY-911, you reach a person who can help.
We have recovered more than $50 million for our clients over more than two decades of practice. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can guarantee is this: when you call, we listen. We evaluate your case honestly. If the class settlement is the right path for you, we will tell you. If individual litigation on the surviving theories is the better path, we will tell you that too. And if we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you that as well — and point you toward someone who is.
Hablamos Español.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Roundup litigation over after the Supreme Court ruling?
No. The Supreme Court’s June 25, 2026 ruling eliminated one legal theory — state-law failure-to-warn claims based on the absence of a cancer warning on Roundup’s EPA-approved label. It did not eliminate design-defect claims, negligence claims, non-label warning claims, or punitive damages. Approximately 61,000 active Roundup lawsuits remain pending as of July 2026, and new claims are still being filed by people recently diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of Roundup exposure.
Can I still file a Roundup lawsuit if I was just diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma?
Yes. New weedkiller lawsuits are being filed regularly, and the litigation remains very much alive. If you have been diagnosed with NHL after years of using Roundup — whether as a residential user, a landscaper, a farmer, or a groundskeeper — you can still file an individual lawsuit on the surviving legal theories. The statute of limitations in most states starts when you knew or should have known your cancer was connected to Roundup, which for most people is the date of diagnosis. But the clock is running, and waiting is the most dangerous thing you can do.
What is the average payout for a Roundup lawsuit?
The proposed $7.25 billion class settlement would average approximately $110,000 to $120,000 per claimant across 61,000 to 65,000 cases, but this average obscures enormous individual variance. The settlement uses a point-scoring system that tiers payouts based on cancer subtype, treatment outcome, age, and earnings capacity. Lower-tier cases may receive $25,000 to $100,000; higher-tier cases receive more. Individual litigation on surviving theories — design defect and negligence — can produce significantly larger recoveries for strong cases, but carries the risk of the post-SCOTUS legal landscape. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
How does the settlement point system work?
The settlement assigns point scores to case-specific factors: the type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the treatment outcome, the victim’s age, and estimated earnings capacity. Individual cases are then placed into settlement tiers based on their total point scores. Cases with higher scores — more aggressive NHL subtypes, worse treatment outcomes, younger plaintiffs with higher lost earnings — receive larger payouts. Cases with lower scores — limited exposure evidence, older plaintiffs, shorter life expectancy — receive much smaller payouts. The system is designed to be efficient, which also means it is designed to pay less to people at the margins, particularly residential users who may not score well on exposure-duration metrics.
Should I take the class settlement or pursue my own lawsuit?
This depends entirely on the strength of your individual case. The settlement may be the right choice for plaintiffs with weaker exposure evidence, older age, shorter life expectancy, or less aggressive NHL subtypes. Individual litigation may be the better path for plaintiffs with documented prolonged Roundup exposure, aggressive NHL requiring extensive treatment, significant lost earnings, and strong punitive evidence of corporate misconduct. The evaluation turns on four factors: exposure evidence strength, NHL severity, venue, and the appellate risk of surviving theories. This decision cannot be made based on a headline or a phone call from a settlement administrator. It requires an individual case evaluation by a lawyer who understands both the settlement structure and the post-SCOTUS legal landscape.
What if I already opted into the class settlement?
The opt-out deadline was June 4, 2026, and has passed for existing class members. If you are in the class, you should understand your projected tier and payout under the point system, and you should have an attorney evaluate whether your projected tier fairly reflects the value of your case. If your opt-out was rejected for a technical deficiency — and the settlement’s opt-out process was so complicated that this happened to many people — you may be bound to a settlement tier that undervalues your case. Get help understanding your position immediately.
What if I used Roundup but have not been diagnosed with cancer yet?
The proposed settlement covers future claims — people who were exposed to Roundup but have not yet been diagnosed with NHL. This is both a benefit and a risk. The benefit is that if you develop NHL in the future, there is a settlement fund designed to compensate you. The risk is that the settlement may bind you to a payout structure that undervalues your future claim, and you may be giving up the right to bring an individual lawsuit without fully understanding what you are losing. If you have extensive Roundup exposure but have not been diagnosed, you should understand what rights the settlement may affect before it receives final approval.
How long do I have to file a Roundup lawsuit?
State statutes of limitations for personal injury claims typically run two to four years, but for latent diseases like NHL, the discovery rule in most states starts the clock when you knew or should have known your cancer was connected to Roundup — usually the date of diagnosis. Wrongful death deadlines are different and often shorter, typically starting on the date of death. The exact rule varies by state, and some states impose an outer statute of repose that can cut off a claim even before discovery. You cannot know your specific deadline without knowing your state, your diagnosis date, and your exposure history. The safest move is to contact counsel immediately — every month you wait is a month closer to a deadline you may not know exists.
Did the Supreme Court say Roundup does not cause cancer?
No. The Supreme Court said that FIFRA — the federal pesticide law — preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims based on the absence of a cancer warning on the EPA-approved label. That is a ruling about legal preemption, not about whether glyphosate causes cancer. The IARC classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) remains in place. The EPA’s position that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic” also remains in place. The scientific debate is unchanged, and the evidence on both sides remains admissible in court. The ruling changed which legal theories are available — it did not change the science.
What if my loved one died from non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup?
You may have both a survival action — which preserves the damages your loved one would have been entitled to before death, including their pain and suffering, medical bills, and lost wages — and a wrongful death claim, which compensates surviving family members for the loss of financial support, companionship, guidance, and consortium. Wrongful death deadlines are often shorter than personal injury deadlines and typically start on the date of death. If your loved one used Roundup for years and died from NHL, do not wait. The clock on a wrongful death claim can be as short as one to two years in some states, and families who wait to “see what happens” with the settlement may lose the right to file entirely.
What evidence do I need for a Roundup case?
The foundational evidence is your medical records — pathology reports confirming the NHL diagnosis, treatment history, oncologist opinions — and your Roundup exposure history, documented through purchase receipts, product containers, store records, agricultural use logs, and witness statements from family, coworkers, or neighbors who can corroborate your usage. Internal Monsanto and Bayer corporate documents — already produced in MDL discovery — provide the liability and punitive damages evidence. The IARC monograph and epidemiological studies provide the general causation foundation. The most perishable evidence is your exposure documentation: product containers degrade, store records are purged, and witness memories fade. Document everything you can remember now, and contact counsel to begin the preservation process.
How much does it cost to hire a Roundup lawyer?
We work on contingency. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The first consultation is free and confidential. There are no hourly charges and no upfront costs. If we do not recover money for you, you owe us nothing for attorney fees. We have live staff available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 1-888-ATTY-911. Hablamos Español.