Missouri Roundup Cancer Lawsuits After the Supreme Court Ruling: What Survives, What Does Not, and What You Should Do Right Now
You heard the news. The Supreme Court ruled for Bayer. A Missouri verdict was thrown out. And now you are sitting at a kitchen table at 2 a.m. wondering whether the case you were counting on — the case that was supposed to answer for the cancer that upended your life — is dead. We are writing this page for that exact moment. The answer is not what the headlines made it sound like. The ruling is real. It eliminated one legal theory. It did not eliminate your case. And the difference between those two things is everything.
Here is what actually happened on June 25, 2026: the United States Supreme Court held that a federal pesticide law called FIFRA — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — preempts state-law claims that demand a cancer warning on the Roundup label. The court overturned a 2024 Missouri jury verdict that had awarded $1.25 million to a man who used Roundup and developed blood cancer. That part is true. But plaintiff counsel in the Roundup litigation stated plainly after the ruling that it “only impacts cases that are based on failure-to-warn in the pesticide labels” — and does not bar claims based on defective design, negligence, or warnings communicated outside the label through advertising and marketing. Bayer has already paid more than $10 billion to resolve prior claims. More than 60,000 lawsuits remain pending. The litigation is not over. It has changed shape.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a trial firm that takes toxic tort and product liability cases in Missouri and nationwide. We are writing this page because the most dangerous thing happening right now is not the Supreme Court ruling itself — it is the wave of misinformation telling cancer patients their cases are worthless. That misinformation is exactly what Bayer’s lawyers are counting on. Every person who hears “the Supreme Court killed the Roundup cases” and walks away is a person Bayer never has to face. This page exists to make sure that does not happen to you.
What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled on June 25, 2026
The Supreme Court’s decision addressed one specific question: whether FIFRA, the federal statute that governs pesticide labeling, blocks people from suing under state law to demand a cancer warning on a Roundup label that the EPA approved without one. The court said yes — it does block those claims.
Here is the mechanism. FIFRA establishes a national, uniform labeling system for pesticides. Every pesticide sold in the United States must be registered with the EPA, and the EPA must approve the product’s label — including every warning, instruction, and piece of safety information on it. The law is explicit about what states can and cannot do with those labels:
No state may impose labeling requirements that differ from or exceed EPA-approved labels.
The EPA reviewed glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — and classified it as “unlikely” to be a human carcinogen. Because of that classification, the EPA did not require a cancer warning on Roundup labels. And because FIFRA bars states from imposing labeling requirements beyond what the EPA approves, Monsanto was legally prohibited from adding a cancer warning to the Roundup label without the EPA’s sign-off. In December 2025, the U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief supporting Monsanto’s position, aligning the federal government’s regulatory posture with the defense.
The Supreme Court’s ruling flows from that structure. If federal law prohibits the manufacturer from adding the warning, and if federal law bars states from requiring it, then a state-law claim that says “you should have put a cancer warning on the label” is asking for something the company was legally forbidden to do. That claim, the court held, is preempted — displaced by federal law. The ruling applies uniformly across all 50 states and supersedes any state product-liability or consumer-protection statute that would impose such a labeling requirement.
The Supreme Court also overturned the Missouri verdict — a 2024 jury award of $1.25 million to a plaintiff who alleged Roundup caused his blood cancer and that Monsanto should have warned him. That verdict was built on the label-based failure-to-warn theory. With that theory now preempted, the verdict could not stand. The court reversed it.
That is the full scope of the ruling. It is significant. It is not the end of Roundup litigation.
The Missouri Verdict That Was Overturned — and Why It Matters to You
The overturned Missouri verdict is the clearest illustration of what the ruling does — and does not — mean. In 2024, a Missouri state court jury heard a case from a man who had used Roundup and developed blood cancer. The jury found that Monsanto should have provided a warning about cancer risk on the product label, and it awarded $1.25 million in compensation. That was a real verdict, from a real Missouri jury, in a state whose courts have historically produced some of the most plaintiff-favorable results in product liability litigation.
The Supreme Court took that verdict away. Not because the jury was wrong about the facts. Not because Roundup is safe. Not because the plaintiff did not have cancer. The verdict was overturned because the legal theory it rested on — “you should have put a cancer warning on the EPA-approved label” — is a theory federal law now forbids.
If your pending case relies solely on that same theory — that Monsanto should have added a cancer warning to the Roundup label — then yes, the Supreme Court ruling has changed your case. Your primary liability theory has been removed. That is a hard truth, and we will not pretend otherwise.
But here is the other hard truth: most Roundup cases were filed with multiple theories of liability, and the label-based failure-to-warn was only one of them. The surviving theories are not afterthoughts. They are independent legal claims that target different conduct by Monsanto — conduct that FIFRA does not touch.
Which Roundup Claims Are Now Preempted — and Which Still Survive
This is the most important section on this page. If you read nothing else, read this. The Supreme Court ruling drew a line through one category of claims and left three others standing. Understanding which side of that line your case falls on determines everything.
The Preempted Theory: Label-Based Failure to Warn
The theory that is now dead is narrow and specific. It says: Monsanto had a duty under state law to warn consumers about cancer risk by putting a warning on the Roundup label, and its failure to do so makes it liable for injuries caused by the product. This theory is preempted because FIFRA gives the EPA exclusive authority over pesticide labels, the EPA did not require a cancer warning, and federal law barred Monsanto from adding one unilaterally.
If your case was filed with only this theory — or if this theory was the dominant claim — your case faces a serious obstacle. The preemption ruling applies to cases pending at the time of the decision, not just to future filings. Even completed verdicts on this theory, like the Missouri case, are vulnerable to reversal.
The Surviving Theory: Design Defect
A design defect claim argues something fundamentally different from a failure-to-warn claim. It says: Roundup is unreasonably dangerous as designed — not because the label was missing a warning, but because the product itself, with glyphosate as its active ingredient, poses an unreasonable risk of harm to users, and a safer alternative design was feasible. This theory is independent of any labeling deficiency. It asks whether the product’s formulation is defective, not whether the label was inadequate.
The FIFRA preemption ruling does not reach this theory. FIFRA governs labels. It does not grant immunity from design defect claims. A manufacturer whose product is unreasonably dangerous as designed can still be held liable under state product liability law, regardless of what the EPA approved the label to say. The EPA’s classification of glyphosate as “unlikely” to be carcinogenic is not a finding that the product is safe for all uses — it is a regulatory classification that governs labeling requirements, not a shield against design defect litigation.
Proving a design defect claim requires showing three things: that the product was unreasonably dangerous as designed, that a safer alternative design was feasible (one that would have reduced the risk while still serving the product’s intended purpose), and that the design defect caused your injury. Missouri applies a risk-utility test for design defect claims, which weighs the product’s utility against the risk it poses and asks whether a reasonable manufacturer would have put it on the market in this form. This is a harder claim to prove than a failure-to-warn claim — but it is very much alive.
The Surviving Theory: Negligence
A negligence claim targets Monsanto’s conduct outside the label — its testing, its research, its communications through channels other than the product label. The claim says: Monsanto failed to exercise reasonable care in researching glyphosate’s cancer risks, in communicating those risks through safety data sheets, training materials, direct communications to users, or in responding to scientific evidence that its product could cause cancer.
This theory is not preempted because it does not demand anything on the label. It demands that the company act with reasonable care in how it researched, tested, and communicated about its product — duties that exist independent of FIFRA’s labeling scheme. A negligence claim can target what Monsanto knew internally about cancer risk, when it knew it, and what it did (or did not) do with that knowledge outside the four corners of the EPA-approved label.
The discovery that fuels a negligence claim is the gap between Monsanto’s internal scientific assessments and its external posture. Internal emails, research memos, scientific advisory board minutes, and communications with regulators can all show what the company knew about cancer risk versus what it told the world. Much of this discovery has already been produced in the federal multidistrict litigation — new plaintiffs should demand all prior production plus any documents generated after the 2020 post-acquisition integration with Bayer.
The Surviving Theory: Off-Label Marketing and Advertising Warnings
This may be the most important surviving theory. It targets warnings — or the absence of warnings — communicated through channels other than the FIFRA-governed label. Advertising. Promotional materials. Website claims. Sales representative communications. Marketing campaigns. If Monsanto’s marketing materials affirmatively represented that Roundup was safe, or if they minimized or omitted cancer risk information in communications that were not part of the EPA-approved label, those representations are not shielded by FIFRA preemption.
The distinction is precise but powerful. FIFRA governs the label. It does not govern the company’s advertising, its website, its promotional brochures, or what its sales representatives told farmers and landscapers about cancer risk. If the company’s marketing created a false impression of safety — or if it failed to communicate known cancer risks through non-label channels — those are state-law claims that survive the preemption ruling.
This theory requires careful discovery. Marketing materials may have been archived, modified, or removed from websites. Historical advertising campaigns may exist only in partial records. Preservation demands must go out immediately to freeze these materials before they disappear.
The Defendant: Bayer AG and Monsanto Company
Understanding who you are suing — and how the corporate structure works — is not a formality. It determines who has the money, who controlled the decisions that matter, and who can actually be held accountable.
Bayer AG is the parent corporation. A German pharmaceutical and life sciences giant, Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion and assumed the entire Roundup litigation portfolio. Bayer has already paid more than $10 billion to resolve prior claims — a figure that demonstrates both the scale of the litigation and Bayer’s recognition of substantial liability exposure. In February 2026, Bayer proposed a nationwide class action settlement to resolve current and future claims linking Roundup to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that settlement has received preliminary approval.
Monsanto Company is the operating subsidiary — the original manufacturer, distributor, and registrant of Roundup glyphosate products. Monsanto held the FIFRA registration with the EPA. Monsanto controlled all labeling decisions. Monsanto designed, tested, and marketed the product. Monsanto is the target of all 60,000-plus pending lawsuits.
The corporate structure matters because the surviving theories — design defect, negligence, off-label marketing — target Monsanto’s conduct, not just its label. Internal corporate documents on glyphosate carcinogenicity research, marketing approval chains, and communications between Monsanto and Bayer post-acquisition are all discoverable. The deep-pocket parent (Bayer) supports collectibility — this is not a defendant that will be judgment-proof. But the specific corporate knowledge, the specific marketing decisions, and the specific scientific assessments all trace back to Monsanto’s internal operations.
Bayer celebrated the Supreme Court ruling with a public statement: “Many billions have been directed toward [this] litigation… Money that could have funded the next generation of sustainable crop protection tools, breakthrough therapies, or other advances that farmers, consumers, and patients urgently need.” Read that statement carefully. Bayer framed the litigation as a drain on innovation — not as a vindication of Roundup’s safety. The company that has paid $10 billion to resolve cancer claims is not claiming its product is harmless. It is claiming that one legal theory against it has been narrowed. Those are very different things.
The Medicine: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Glyphosate Exposure
The injuries at the center of Roundup litigation are primarily non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other blood cancers. These are catastrophic conditions. Understanding the medicine is not optional — it is the foundation of every surviving theory, because design defect, negligence, and off-label marketing claims all require proving that glyphosate can cause the cancer you developed.
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a cancer that begins in the lymphatic system — the body’s network of lymph nodes, vessels, and organs that help fight infection. It originates in white blood cells called lymphocytes. There are many subtypes of NHL, and the specific subtype you were diagnosed with may strengthen or weaken the causal connection to glyphosate. Your pathology report — the document that confirms your exact diagnosis and cancer subtype — is one of the most important medical records in your case.
The causal link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma is contested. On one side, the International Agency for Research on Cancer — the World Health Organization’s cancer authority — classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015. That classification is based on limited evidence of cancer in humans and sufficient evidence in animal studies. On the other side, the EPA classified glyphosate as “unlikely” to be a human carcinogen. The tension between these two classifications is the scientific battleground of the litigation.
For your case, general causation — whether glyphosate can cause NHL at all — and specific causation — whether your specific Roundup exposure caused your specific cancer — are both required. General causation is proven through epidemiological studies, toxicology research, and expert testimony from oncologists, toxicologists, and epidemiologists. Specific causation is proven through your exposure history: how long you used Roundup, how frequently, in what quantities, through what application methods, and what your cumulative dose was.
The defense will exploit every gap in your exposure proof. They will argue your cancer had other causes — age, genetics, other chemical exposures, lifestyle factors. They will argue your Roundup use was too infrequent or too brief to have caused anything. They will argue the epidemiological evidence is too weak to support causation. These are the same fights that existed before the Supreme Court ruling, and they are the same fights that remain on the surviving theories.
Treatment for non-Hodgkin lymphoma can involve chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation, and in some cases stem cell transplants. The medical costs alone can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lost earning capacity — the income you will not earn because of treatment, recovery, disability, or death — adds substantially to the damages picture. In fatal cases, wrongful death claims carry their own damages framework, including the financial support the family lost and the conscious pain and suffering the decedent experienced before death.
What Your Roundup Case Is Worth After the Ruling
The preemption ruling has compressed case values for Roundup litigation — but it has not eliminated them. The value of your case now depends on which theory it proceeds under, the strength of your exposure evidence, the severity of your medical damages, and whether you pursue individual litigation or participate in the class action settlement.
Low end: $50,000 to $150,000. This range reflects what a class action settlement tier may offer for non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims with moderate exposure history and treatment records. The preemption ruling eliminated the simplest and most common liability theory, which has compressed the settlement value of cases that would have relied on it. The class action settlement, if given final approval, would administer claims through a structured compensation program with defined payment tiers.
High end: $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 or more. This range reflects what an individual verdict on a surviving theory — design defect, negligence, or off-label marketing — could produce, particularly with strong internal-document evidence of corporate knowledge of cancer risk, significant medical damages, and punitive-damage exposure in a favorable venue. Historical Roundup verdicts before the preemption ruling reached into the tens of millions, but those verdicts were built on the now-preempted label theory. Post-ruling values are lower because the surviving theories carry higher proof burdens and the primary theory is foreclosed.
The deep-pocket defendant — Bayer/Monsanto — supports collectibility. This is not a case where you win a verdict and the defendant cannot pay. Bayer is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. The $10 billion already paid demonstrates both the financial capacity and the willingness to resolve claims. The question is not whether there is money — it is what your specific case is worth under the surviving theories and whether the class action settlement or individual litigation produces the better outcome for you.
Every case value figure on this page is an honest range, not a prediction. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The Supreme Court ruling has genuinely changed the litigation landscape, and any lawyer who tells you your case is worth exactly what it was worth before the ruling is not telling you the truth.
The Evidence Clock: Records That Prove Your Case and How Fast They Disappear
The evidence in a Roundup case falls into two categories: corporate records that prove what Monsanto knew and what it did with that knowledge, and personal records that prove your exposure and your injury. Both are on clocks. Both can disappear. And the day you contact a lawyer is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
Internal Monsanto/Bayer corporate documents on glyphosate carcinogenicity research. These documents prove corporate knowledge of cancer risk — the foundation of design defect, negligence, and punitive damage claims on the surviving theories. They show what Monsanto knew internally versus what it communicated to the EPA, regulators, and the public. Many of these documents have already been produced in prior multidistrict litigation discovery. New plaintiffs should demand all prior production plus any documents generated after the 2020 Bayer-Monsanto acquisition integration. These documents are in the defendant’s possession and are subject to litigation holds, but the scope of what has been preserved depends on when holds were issued and how broadly they were drafted.
Marketing, advertising, and promotional materials for Roundup. These are the foundation of the off-label failure-to-warn theory — the surviving claim that targets what the company told consumers outside the FIFRA-governed label. Historical marketing materials may show affirmative misrepresentations about safety or minimization of cancer risk. Web-based marketing materials may have been modified or removed. Print advertising and promotional brochures may exist only in archived records. The company’s retention policies vary, and without a litigation hold, these materials can be routinely purged. A preservation letter must go out immediately to freeze them.
EPA regulatory submissions and communications regarding glyphosate classification. These establish the regulatory framework context and may reveal whether Monsanto influenced the EPA’s “unlikely carcinogen” classification through selective data submission. Federal records are retained under agency retention schedules, but obtaining them through Freedom of Information Act requests can take months. These records are important context but are not perishable in the same way as corporate documents.
Your exposure history documentation. Purchase receipts for Roundup products. Usage logs or calendars. Photographs of Roundup containers in your garage, barn, or equipment shed. Witnesses who can testify about your Roundup use — family members, coworkers, employees, neighbors. This is your specific causation evidence — the proof that links your individual Roundup use to your cancer diagnosis. Receipts degrade. Product containers get discarded. Witness memories fade. This evidence must be collected within months of case intake, not years.
Your medical records and pathology reports. The records that confirm your non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis — your specific cancer subtype, your treatment history, your prognosis. Medical providers retain records for years, but obtaining complete oncology files requires an early, specific request. Your pathology report — the document that names your exact cancer subtype — is among the most important medical records in your case, because certain NHL subtypes have stronger causal links to glyphosate exposure than others.
The fastest-dying evidence in a Roundup case is your personal exposure proof. The corporate documents are largely in the defendant’s control and subject to litigation holds. But your receipts, your product containers, your witnesses’ memories — those are yours to preserve, and they fade on their own timeline. This is why the preservation letter goes out the day you call, not the month you decide whether you are “ready.”
The Defense Playbook: What Bayer’s Lawyers Will Try Next
The Supreme Court ruling has handed Bayer’s defense team a new playbook — and if you have a pending case or are considering filing one, you need to know what is coming. The insurance defense playbook is not new, but the preemption ruling has given it fresh ammunition. Here are the plays you should expect, and the counter to each one.
Play 1: “The Supreme Court ruled — your case is over.” This is the first and most aggressive play. Bayer’s lawyers will cite the ruling as a reason to dismiss your case entirely, arguing that the preemption decision forecloses all Roundup litigation. The counter: the ruling preempted only label-based failure-to-warn claims. Design defect, negligence, and off-label marketing claims are not preempted. If your case includes any of these theories — or if it can be amended to include them — it survives. The defense will push this narrative in early motions, settlement conferences, and media statements. Do not accept it without a lawyer who knows the difference between one preempted theory and a fully preempted case.
Play 2: “The EPA says glyphosate is safe — there is no causation.” The defense will lean on the EPA’s “unlikely” classification to argue that glyphosate cannot cause cancer and therefore no Roundup claim can succeed. The counter: the EPA’s regulatory classification governs labeling requirements — it is not a scientific finding that glyphosate is incapable of causing cancer, and it is not admissible as proof of safety in a civil trial. The IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic.” The scientific debate is real and unresolved, and on surviving theories, the jury — not the EPA — decides whether the evidence supports causation.
Play 3: “Join the class action settlement — it is your best and only option.” Bayer’s defense team will point to the February 2026 class action settlement as the exclusive path to compensation, implying that individual litigation is no longer viable. The counter: the class action settlement is one option among several. It may provide a structured compensation floor — but it may also create a ceiling. Whether the settlement’s compensation tiers exceed what you could recover through individual litigation on surviving theories depends on the strength of your exposure evidence, your medical damages, your venue, and whether your case supports punitive damages. This is a decision that should be made with individual counsel who can evaluate your specific case value against the settlement terms — not a decision guided by a class notice or a defense lawyer’s recommendation.
Play 4: “Your exposure was too low to have caused your cancer.” The defense will attack specific causation — arguing that your Roundup use was too infrequent, too brief, or at too low a dose to have caused your non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The counter: dose reconstruction, exposure history documentation, and expert toxicological testimony. The more thoroughly your exposure is documented — receipts, usage logs, witness testimony, photographs of product containers — the harder this play is to run. A plaintiff who can show years of regular, heavy Roundup use has a fundamentally different specific-causation profile than one who used it once a year on a garden bed.
Play 5: Delay. The defense will use the preemption ruling as cover for delay — arguing that the legal landscape is uncertain, that the class action settlement process needs time, that your case should be stayed pending further developments. The counter: the statute of limitations is still running. The evidence is still dying. Delay is the defense’s friend, not yours. Every month that passes is a month closer to the deadline and a month further from the evidence you need.
Missouri Law: Your Rights After the Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling is federal law and applies uniformly across all 50 states. But the surviving theories — design defect, negligence, off-label marketing — are state-law claims, and Missouri’s specific product liability framework governs how those claims are tried and what they are worth. Missouri is a significant venue for Roundup litigation. The overturned 2024 verdict came from Missouri state court. Missouri’s agricultural industry — soybeans, corn, cotton — means many Missouri residents have had extensive, occupational-level Roundup exposure over years or decades.
Missouri’s statute of limitations. Missouri has one of the longest personal injury statutes of limitations in the country — five years for personal injury actions. For wrongful death actions, the limitation period is three years. These are among the most generous deadlines in the United States, and they give Missouri plaintiffs more time than residents of most other states to file a claim. But the clock does not necessarily start on the date you were exposed to Roundup. For toxic tort cases, Missouri applies the discovery rule — the statute of limitations begins to run when you knew or reasonably should have known of your injury and its causal connection to the defendant’s product. For most Roundup plaintiffs, that means the clock starts around the date of your non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis — the date you learned you had cancer — not the date you last used Roundup. Even with five years, you should not wait. The evidence decays regardless of the legal deadline.
Missouri’s comparative fault rule. Missouri follows a comparative fault system in which your own share of fault reduces your recovery. Missouri’s rule is one of the more plaintiff-favorable in the country. The defense will try to pin fault on you — arguing you used Roundup carelessly, you did not follow label instructions, you failed to wear protective equipment. Every percentage point of fault they assign is money subtracted from your recovery. This is exactly why the adjuster works so hard to get you to say “I probably should have been more careful” in a recorded statement. The counter is simple: do not give a recorded statement without a lawyer, and do not accept fault for using a product the manufacturer represented as safe.
Missouri’s design defect test. Missouri applies a risk-utility test for design defect claims. This means the jury weighs the utility of the product against the risk it poses and asks whether a reasonable manufacturer would have put it on the market in this form, and whether a safer alternative design was feasible. This test is harder to satisfy than the consumer-expectation test some states use, but it is well-suited to a product like Roundup where the risk-benefit analysis is genuinely contested — and where internal corporate documents may show that Monsanto’s own risk assessments were more alarming than its public posture suggested.
Missouri’s punitive damages posture. Missouri allows punitive damages in product liability cases where the defendant’s conduct showed a complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others. Internal Monsanto documents showing corporate knowledge of cancer risk — research that was suppressed, warnings that were considered and rejected, science that was downplayed in marketing — can support a punitive damages claim. Punitive damages are not available on the preempted label-based theory, but they remain available on the surviving theories where corporate knowledge and conscious disregard can be proven. This is significant because punitive damages can substantially increase case value beyond the compensatory floor.
The Class Action Settlement: One Option Among Several
In February 2026, Bayer proposed a nationwide class action settlement to resolve current and future claims linking Roundup to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The settlement includes a long-term compensation program and has received preliminary approval. If given final approval, it would operate under federal court supervision with its own claims-administration procedures.
The class action settlement is a real option. It may provide a faster, more predictable path to compensation for some plaintiffs — particularly those with moderate exposure histories, standard treatment courses, and cases that would have relied primarily on the now-preempted label theory. The settlement’s compensation tiers may establish a floor — a minimum payment for qualifying claims.
But a floor can also be a ceiling. If the settlement’s payment tiers are lower than what you could recover through individual litigation on a surviving theory — particularly one supported by strong internal-document evidence and punitive-damage exposure — then joining the class action settlement could mean accepting less than your case is worth. The settlement may also require you to release all future claims against Bayer and Monsanto, including claims for cancer recurrence or secondary cancers.
This is a strategic fork, and it should be made with individual counsel — not with a class notice and not with a defense lawyer’s recommendation. The decision depends on:
- The strength of your exposure evidence and how it compares to the settlement’s qualifying criteria
- Your specific non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype and treatment history
- Whether your case supports a design defect, negligence, or off-label marketing claim with strong internal-document evidence
- Whether your venue supports punitive damages and what the likely trial value is on surviving theories
- The settlement’s opt-out deadline and whether you can preserve your individual case by opting out
- The applicable Missouri statute of limitations and whether you can still file an individual claim
Do not let anyone — a class notice, an adjuster, a news report, or a well-meaning friend — make this decision for you. This is a legal decision with financial consequences that may last the rest of your life, and it should be made with a lawyer who has evaluated your specific case against the settlement terms.
The First Steps: What to Do If You Have a Roundup Case
If you used Roundup and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma — whether you have a pending case, were considering filing one, or just heard about the ruling and are wondering whether you still have options — here is what you should do, and what you should not do, in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling.
Do not panic. The ruling eliminated one legal theory. It did not eliminate all Roundup litigation. More than 60,000 cases are still pending. Bayer has paid $10 billion and is proposing a new class action settlement because it recognizes ongoing liability. Your case is not worthless.
Do not accept any settlement offer without speaking to a lawyer. If you have a pending case and the defense approaches you with a “reduced” settlement offer — citing the Supreme Court ruling as the reason — do not accept it without independent legal advice. The ruling may have compressed your case value, but it did not zero it out. The defense is counting on you to accept less than your case is worth because you are scared.
Do not give a recorded statement. If an adjuster, a defense lawyer, or a class action settlement administrator asks you to give a statement about your Roundup use, your cancer diagnosis, or your understanding of the Supreme Court ruling — do not do it without a lawyer. Everything you say can and will be used to reduce the value of your claim.
Do not throw anything away. Your Roundup receipts. Your product containers. Your usage logs. Your medical records. Your pathology report. Your employment records if your exposure was occupational. All of it is evidence. The product containers in your garage or barn — with their labels, lot numbers, and purchase dates — are physical evidence of what you used and when. Photograph them. Save them. Do not discard them.
Do document your exposure history. Write down everything you can remember about your Roundup use — what products you used, when you started, how often you used them, how much you used, what you were doing (farming, landscaping, gardening, grounds maintenance), what equipment you used (backpack sprayer, truck-mounted sprayer, hand sprayer), and whether you wore protective equipment. This document — created now, while your memory is fresh — is specific causation evidence.
Do gather your medical records. Request your complete oncology file from every treating provider — your diagnosis records, your pathology report, your treatment history, your imaging, your lab results, your prognosis. These records are the damages proof in your case, and obtaining complete files takes time.
Do check the deadline. Missouri’s five-year statute of limitations for personal injury is one of the longest in the country, but it is not infinite. The discovery rule means the clock generally starts around your diagnosis date — but every state applies the discovery rule differently, and Missouri’s specific application should be confirmed for your individual circumstances. If you are considering a claim, the safest move is to talk to a lawyer now, not later.
Do call us. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. We will tell you honestly whether your case has a viable path forward on the surviving theories, whether the class action settlement is a better option for you, or whether the preemption ruling has genuinely closed the door on your specific facts. If we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you that too. Contact us at 1-888-ATTY-911. We have live staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — not an answering service.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is my Roundup lawsuit over after the Supreme Court ruling?
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court’s June 25, 2026 ruling preempted only one legal theory — label-based failure-to-warn claims that demand a cancer warning on the EPA-approved Roundup label. If your case was filed with additional theories — design defect, negligence, or off-label marketing warnings — those claims survive. If your case relied solely on the label-based theory, it faces a serious obstacle but may be amendable to include surviving theories. You need a lawyer to review your specific pleadings and tell you what remains viable.
Can I still file a new Roundup cancer lawsuit?
Yes — but the legal theory must be built on the surviving claims, not the preempted label-based theory. A new case should be structured around design defect (the product is unreasonably dangerous as designed), negligence (the company failed to exercise reasonable care in testing, researching, or communicating cancer risk through non-label channels), and off-label marketing warnings (the company’s advertising and promotional materials misrepresented or minimized cancer risk). Missouri’s five-year statute of limitations — measured from the date you discovered or should have discovered your injury and its cause — generally gives you until approximately five years after your cancer diagnosis to file. But do not wait — evidence decays regardless of the legal deadline.
Should I join the class action settlement or pursue individual litigation?
This depends on your specific case. The February 2026 class action settlement — which has received preliminary approval — may provide a faster, more predictable path for some plaintiffs. But it may also cap your recovery below what you could achieve through individual litigation on a surviving theory, particularly if your case has strong internal-document evidence and punitive-damage exposure. The settlement may also require you to release all future claims. This decision should be made with individual counsel who can evaluate your case value against the settlement terms — not based on a class notice or a defense lawyer’s recommendation.
What is FIFRA preemption and why does it matter to my case?
FIFRA — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — is the federal law that governs pesticide registration and labeling in the United States. Under FIFRA, the EPA must approve every pesticide label, and no state may impose labeling requirements that differ from or exceed the EPA-approved label. The EPA classified glyphosate as “unlikely” to be a human carcinogen and did not require a cancer warning on Roundup labels. The Supreme Court held that because federal law barred Monsanto from adding a cancer warning without EPA approval, state-law claims demanding such a warning are preempted — displaced by federal law. This matters because it removes the simplest and most common liability theory from Roundup cases. But it does not affect claims that target the product’s design, the company’s negligence, or its off-label marketing conduct.
What cancers qualify for a Roundup lawsuit?
The primary injury in Roundup litigation is non-Hodgkin lymphoma — a blood cancer that originates in the lymphatic system. Other blood cancers and lymphatic cancers have also been alleged in some cases. The specific subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma you were diagnosed with may strengthen or weaken the causal connection to glyphosate exposure. Your pathology report — which confirms your exact diagnosis and cancer subtype — is a critical document. If you were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and have a history of Roundup use, you should speak with a lawyer regardless of the specific subtype.
How long do I have to file a Roundup lawsuit in Missouri?
Missouri has a five-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions — one of the longest in the United States. For wrongful death actions, the limitation period is three years. For toxic tort cases like Roundup litigation, the discovery rule typically applies — meaning the clock starts when you knew or reasonably should have known of your injury and its causal connection to Roundup. For most plaintiffs, this means the clock starts around the date of your non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis. But every case is different, and the specific accrual date depends on your individual facts. Do not assume you have plenty of time — evidence decays, witnesses move, and corporate documents can be purged on retention schedules regardless of the legal deadline. Talk to a lawyer now.
What is the difference between label-based and off-label failure-to-warn claims?
A label-based failure-to-warn claim says: the company should have put a cancer warning on the product label, and its failure to do so makes it liable. This claim is now preempted by FIFRA because the EPA controls pesticide labels and did not require a cancer warning. An off-label failure-to-warn claim says: the company’s advertising, promotional materials, website content, sales representative communications, or marketing campaigns misrepresented the safety of Roundup or failed to communicate known cancer risks through channels other than the label. This claim is not preempted because FIFRA governs the label — it does not govern the company’s advertising or marketing. The off-label theory targets what the company told consumers outside the four corners of the EPA-approved label, and it remains viable after the Supreme Court ruling.
How much is my Roundup cancer case worth?
Case values have been compressed by the preemption ruling, but they have not been eliminated. On the low end, class action settlement tiers may provide $50,000 to $150,000 for non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims with moderate exposure and treatment history. On the high end, individual verdicts on surviving theories — design defect, negligence, or off-label marketing — with strong internal-document evidence, significant medical damages, and punitive-damage exposure may support $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 or more. Historical Roundup verdicts before the ruling reached into the tens of millions, but those were built on the now-preempted label theory. The value of your specific case depends on your exposure history, your cancer subtype, your treatment costs, your lost earning capacity, your venue, and which surviving theories your case can support. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
What evidence do I need for a Roundup lawsuit?
Two categories of evidence are critical. First, your exposure proof: purchase receipts for Roundup products, product containers with labels and lot numbers, usage logs or calendars, photographs of your Roundup use, and witness testimony from family members, coworkers, or employees who can confirm your usage patterns. Second, your medical proof: your pathology report confirming your non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis and specific subtype, your complete treatment records, your imaging and lab results, and your prognosis. The corporate evidence — internal Monsanto documents on glyphosate research, marketing materials, and EPA submissions — is largely obtained through discovery, but your personal exposure and medical evidence is yours to preserve, and it decays on its own timeline. Collect it early.
Can I still get punitive damages in a Roundup case?
Yes — on the surviving theories. Punitive damages are not available on the preempted label-based failure-to-warn theory, but they remain available on design defect, negligence, and off-label marketing claims where you can prove that Monsanto’s conduct showed a complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others. Internal corporate documents showing that Monsanto knew about cancer risks — through its own research, through scientific advisory board findings, or through internal communications — and chose to downplay, suppress, or omit that information in its marketing and external communications can support a punitive damages claim. Missouri allows punitive damages in product liability cases where this standard is met. The availability and amount of punitive damages depend on your specific facts, your venue, and the strength of your corporate-knowledge evidence.
Why Our Firm
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a Houston-based trial firm that takes toxic tort and product liability cases in Missouri and nationwide. We are not on the Roundup Supreme Court case, and we do not pretend to be. What we are is a firm with the knowledge, the experience, and the trial instincts to evaluate your Roundup case honestly in the aftermath of the preemption ruling — to tell you whether your case has a viable path forward on the surviving theories, to help you weigh the class action settlement against individual litigation, and to fight for the full value of your claim if you proceed.
Ralph P. Manginello is our managing partner — 27-plus years of licensed practice, admitted to the Texas Bar 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 documents — looking for the gap between what an institution says publicly and what its own files show. That instinct matters in a Roundup case, where the surviving theories turn on the gap between what Monsanto told the EPA and what its own scientists knew. Ralph speaks Spanish. He has spent his career in courtrooms, including federal court.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney — admitted to the Texas Bar in 2012, also admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Before he joined this firm, Lupe spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like you. He knows how claim valuation works from the inside. He knows the recorded-statement trap, the IME doctor selection, the surveillance, and the delay tactics. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients. Lupe is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations without an interpreter.
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% if the case resolves before trial and 40% if it goes to trial. The consultation is free. We have live staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — not an answering service. We have recovered more than $50 million for our clients across our years of practice, and every one of those recoveries started with a phone call from someone who was not sure they had a case.
We serve your family fully in Spanish. Hablamos Español.
If you used Roundup and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the Supreme Court ruling changed the legal landscape — but it did not end your right to seek accountability. The question is not whether you still have a case. The question is which surviving theory your case fits under, what your evidence supports, and whether individual litigation or the class action settlement is the right path for you. Those are questions that require a lawyer who knows the difference between a preempted claim and a preempted case.
Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. There is no fee unless we win your case. And the call you make today may be the one that preserves the evidence, the deadline, and the legal theory that your case depends on — before any of them disappear.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm is free and confidential.