The Supreme Court Just Tossed Thousands of Roundup Lawsuits — But Your Case May Not Be One of Them
If you used Roundup and later developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, you probably heard the news and felt the floor drop. A 7-2 Supreme Court ruling just blocked the most common lawsuit theory against the weedkiller’s maker — the claim that Bayer and its subsidiary Monsanto failed to warn you about cancer risks. A Missouri man who sprayed Roundup in his St. Louis neighborhood for over twenty years, developed the very cancer at the center of this litigation, won a jury verdict of $1.25 million — and never received a dollar. That verdict is now effectively gone.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are writing to you because the headline you read is not the whole story. The Supreme Court closed one door. It did not close the building. Design defect claims — lawsuits arguing the chemical formulation itself is unreasonably dangerous, separate from any warning label — survived the ruling explicitly. And Bayer is proceeding with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement designed to compensate people exactly like you, outside the courthouse. The path forward changed shape on June 25, 2026. It did not disappear.
What follows is everything we know about what this ruling means, what legal options survive, what evidence you need to preserve right now, and what your case may actually be worth — written by the trial team that handles these cases, not by a marketing department. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Contacting us is free and confidential. And we do not get paid unless we win your case.
What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled — and What It Did Not Decide
The Court’s 7-2 decision in the case that began in St. Louis, Missouri held that Roundup cannot be sued in state courts for failure to warn because the Environmental Protection Agency found a cancer link unlikely and approved a product label without requiring a cancer warning. The legal engine behind the ruling is FIFRA — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — the federal statute that governs pesticide registration, labeling, and sale nationwide. The Court determined that FIFRA’s federal labeling regime preempts state tort law from imposing additional or different warning requirements on top of what the EPA approved.
Here is what that means in plain language: the primary theory that drove the Roundup litigation for years — “the company knew this product could cause cancer and didn’t put a warning on the bottle” — is now foreclosed in every state court in the country, including Missouri. A jury cannot hear that theory. A judge must dismiss it.
But here is what the ruling did NOT do. The Court left open the possibility of design defect claims — lawsuits arguing that the product is unreasonably dangerous by virtue of its chemical design or formulation, independent of any warning deficiency. The lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case indicated he is considering bringing a new case on exactly those grounds. And Bayer separately announced it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims through an administrative compensation framework rather than individual trials.
“This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides.”
— Attorney for claimants in the proposed settlement, quoted in public reporting on the ruling
That quote captures the outrage. The outrage is real and justified. But the lawyer who said it also acknowledged that the settlement still allows some people to receive compensation. The door is narrower. It is not sealed.
The Scientific Conflict at the Heart of Every Roundup Case
To understand why failure-to-warn claims existed in the first place — and why design defect claims may still succeed — you need to understand the scientific conflict that created the litigation.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency, separately, determined that glyphosate is “not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed” and approved a product label that does not include a cancer warning.
Two respected scientific bodies looked at the same chemical and reached different conclusions. That divergence is the entire predicate for the litigation. The failure-to-warn theory said: the IARC classification means the company should have warned consumers, regardless of what the EPA required on the label. The Supreme Court said: under federal pesticide law, the EPA’s labeling decision controls, and state courts cannot impose a different warning obligation.
But a design defect claim asks a different question entirely. It does not ask whether the label should have carried a cancer warning. It asks whether the product itself — its chemical formulation — is unreasonably dangerous, and whether a safer alternative design existed that the company chose not to use. That is a question about the product’s design, not its label. And the Supreme Court expressly left that question open.
Who Is on the Other Side — The Corporate Defendant
The defendants in Roundup litigation are two of the largest agrochemical companies on earth.
Monsanto Company — the original developer, manufacturer, and marketer of Roundup glyphosate herbicide. Monsanto designed the product formulation, initiated the EPA registration and labeling strategy, and produced the internal toxicology research that has been at the center of the litigation for years. Monsanto was historically headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri — which is why this city became a significant venue in Roundup litigation. The St. Louis community spray operator whose case reached the Supreme Court was applying Monsanto’s product in Monsanto’s own hometown, in the parks of his historic neighborhood, for over two decades.
Bayer AG — the German agrochemical conglomerate that acquired Monsanto in 2018. Bayer is the named defendant in nationwide Roundup litigation and the corporate decision-maker on post-acquisition settlement strategy and continuing product marketing. After the acquisition, Bayer inherited the tidal wave of lawsuits — including some multibillion-dollar verdicts against Monsanto — and has been working to resolve the exposure ever since, including through the proposed $7.25 billion settlement.
The corporate structure matters because naming the right entity in a lawsuit is foundational work. Monsanto designed the product and initiated the regulatory strategy. Bayer acquired the liability. Both are defendants, but their roles — and the internal documents each holds — differ. A design defect case targets the formulation decisions Monsanto made, the safety testing it conducted (or did not conduct), and whether safer alternative formulations were available and rejected. That evidence lives in Monsanto’s internal research files, much of which has already been produced in massive discovery in prior cases — though access depends on the protective order status of each prior proceeding.
What Claims Are Now Blocked vs. What Remains Viable
Failure to Warn — Now Preempted
The failure-to-warn theory — the claim that the manufacturer failed to warn of cancer risk — is now foreclosed by binding Supreme Court precedent. The Court held that FIFRA preempts this theory because the EPA approved the Roundup label without requiring a cancer warning and found glyphosate “not likely” to be carcinogenic. No state court in the country — including Missouri state courts, which produced several plaintiff verdicts on this theory before the ruling — can hear a failure-to-warn claim against Roundup’s manufacturer.
The $1.25 million jury verdict won by the St. Louis community spray operator was a failure-to-warn verdict. It was never paid, pending appeals throughout the litigation. That verdict is now effectively vacated. He said the biggest disappointment was not his own lost compensation — his cancer is in remission — but the thousands of similar cases that will not see a courtroom.
Design Defect — Still Viable
The Court explicitly left design defect claims open. A design defect claim argues that the glyphosate formulation is unreasonably dangerous by virtue of its chemical design or formulation, independent of any warning deficiency. This theory survives preemption because it targets the product’s design rather than the label.
Missouri applies a risk-utility test for design defect claims. Under that test, a product is defective in design if the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design, and the omission of that alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. Proving a design defect requires:
- Expert testimony from a formulation chemist about alternative designs that existed or were feasible
- Expert testimony from a toxicologist and epidemiologist on causation — linking glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
- Internal corporate documents showing what Monsanto knew about formulation risks and whether safer alternatives were considered and rejected
- Evidence that the product’s risks outweigh its utility
This is a significantly higher evidentiary burden than failure-to-warn. But it is not impossible. The internal Monsanto research on formulation alternatives, toxicity data comparing glyphosate to other herbicide chemistries, and post-acquisition Bayer communications about product redesign are all discoverable. And much of the foundational science — the IARC classification, the epidemiological studies — is already in the public record.
Negligent Product Design and Testing
A related theory — alleging that Monsanto failed to adequately test or design a safer alternative formulation before marketing glyphosate broadly — also survives preemption because it targets the product’s design rather than the label. This claim focuses on the company’s testing protocols, its knowledge of toxicity data, and its decisions about formulation before the product reached the market.
Class-Action Settlement Claims
Bayer’s proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement provides an alternative compensation pathway for claimants who may not want to pursue individual design defect litigation. The settlement operates as a separate administrative compensation framework governed by its own terms and court approval processes. Participation terms and eligibility criteria govern recovery — meaning the amount any individual claimant receives depends on the settlement’s structure, not on a jury verdict. The settlement trades the uncertainty and cost of individual litigation for payment certainty, likely at a reduced per-claimant level compared to a full trial verdict.
Missouri Law and the Roundup Litigation
The underlying Supreme Court case originated in Missouri. The plaintiff was a St. Louis resident who served as his historic neighborhood association’s volunteer spray operator, applying Roundup to community parks over a two-decade period. Missouri has been a significant venue in Roundup litigation given Monsanto’s historical corporate presence in St. Louis, and Missouri state courts produced several plaintiff verdicts before this federal preemption ruling.
Missouri follows pure comparative fault principles — meaning a plaintiff’s own share of fault reduces, but does not bar, recovery. Under pure comparative fault, even if a plaintiff is found 90% at fault, they can still recover 10% of their damages. For Roundup cases, this matters because the defense may argue that the plaintiff chose to use a chemical product, used it more than necessary, or failed to follow label directions. Under pure comparative fault, those arguments reduce the recovery but do not eliminate it.
However, the comparative-fault framework is now largely academic for failure-to-warn claims because the theory itself is foreclosed. For design defect claims, comparative fault remains relevant — the defense may argue that the plaintiff’s use patterns contributed to their exposure, and any fault assigned to the plaintiff would reduce the recovery proportionally.
Missouri’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims — including toxic tort claims — is among the longer in the nation. For a latent disease like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that may appear years or decades after exposure, the discovery rule is critical: the clock generally does not start running until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and its connection to the exposure. This is particularly important for people who used Roundup years ago and only recently received an NHL diagnosis. But statutes of limitations are jurisdiction-specific and can change — the specific deadline for your situation must be confirmed with a lawyer in your state, and you should not wait to find out.
The Medicine — Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma from Glyphosate Exposure
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a hematological cancer — a cancer of the lymphatic system, which is part of the body’s immune defense. It begins in white blood cells called lymphocytes, which normally help the body fight infections. When these cells develop genetic mutations, they grow and multiply abnormally, crowding out healthy cells and forming tumors in lymph nodes, spleen, bone marrow, and other lymphoid tissues.
The mechanism by which glyphosate exposure is alleged to cause NHL is through genotoxicity — the chemical’s ability to damage DNA in blood-forming cells. The IARC classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” was based on a review of epidemiological studies, animal studies, and mechanistic evidence. The agency found limited evidence of cancer in humans (primarily NHL) and sufficient evidence in experimental animals.
The diagnostics for NHL include:
- Complete blood count with differential — to detect abnormal cell populations
- Lymph node biopsy — the definitive diagnostic procedure, with pathology and immunohistochemistry to subtype the lymphoma
- Bone marrow biopsy — to determine if the disease has spread to the marrow
- Imaging studies (CT, PET) — to stage the disease and assess tumor burden
- Flow cytometry — to characterize the specific type of lymphoma cells
Treatment depends on the subtype and stage but commonly includes:
- Chemotherapy regimens (such as R-CHOP for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, the most common subtype)
- Immunotherapy (monoclonal antibodies like rituximab)
- Radiation therapy for localized disease
- Stem cell transplant in relapsed or refractory cases
- Ongoing surveillance imaging and blood work for years after treatment, even in remission
The cost of NHL treatment is substantial. Induction chemotherapy alone can run into the high five to six figures. A stem cell transplant — necessary in some cases — pushes costs into the hundreds of thousands. Long-term surveillance, follow-up imaging, and management of treatment-related complications continue for years. And then there is the human cost: the fear of recurrence, the fatigue during and after treatment, the lost work, the strain on family.
The defense’s proof problem on causation is the central battleground in any remaining Roundup case. The defense will argue that NHL is a common cancer with many causes — some genetic, some environmental, some unknown — and that the plaintiff cannot prove glyphosate caused their specific cancer rather than something else. The counter requires dose reconstruction (how much glyphosate the plaintiff was actually exposed to, over how long), the epidemiological literature showing an association between glyphosate and NHL, and expert testimony on specific causation linking the documented exposure to the diagnosed cancer. The stronger the exposure documentation, the stronger the causation case.
The Evidence You Need to Preserve Right Now — and How Fast It Disappears
Every piece of evidence in a Roundup case exists on a clock. Some of it is already gone. Some of it is dying as you read this. The single most important thing you can do — today, not next month — is make sure your evidence is identified, gathered, and preserved before it legally disappears.
Personal Roundup Usage Records
These are the records that prove how long you used Roundup, how often, and how intensively. They include:
- Purchase receipts and credit card statements showing Roundup purchases over the years
- Store loyalty program purchase history (Home Depot, Lowe’s, Walmart, hardware stores)
- Spray logs, garden journals, or personal calendars noting application dates
- Neighborhood association records (if you applied Roundup in a community setting, as the St. Louis plaintiff did)
- Employment records (if you used Roundup professionally — landscapers, groundskeepers, park workers, farmers)
- Witness statements from family, neighbors, or coworkers who can confirm your usage
How fast they die: Personal records degrade or are discarded over time. Receipts fade. Old credit card statements may no longer be available from your bank. Neighborhood association records may be purged per retention policies. The longer you wait, the more of this evidence disappears — not through anyone’s deliberate action, but through the ordinary passage of time.
Complete Medical Records
Your complete medical record — from the first symptom through diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up — is the proof of your injury. This includes:
- Pathology reports confirming the NHL diagnosis and subtype
- Treatment records (chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, transplant)
- Imaging studies and staging reports
- Remission status documentation
- All treating physician notes and correspondence
- Medical bills and explanation of benefits statements
How fast they die: Standard medical record retention applies — typically 7 to 10 years for adult records, though this varies by provider and state. But obtaining complete records from multiple providers requires prompt coordination. Some providers charge fees for records retrieval. Some records systems migrate or archive older records in ways that make retrieval slower and more expensive. Start the process now.
Internal Monsanto/Bayer Corporate Documents
These are the documents that support a design defect theory — showing what the company knew about formulation risks and whether safer alternatives existed. Much of this evidence has already been produced in massive discovery in prior Roundup cases. The internal toxicology research, safety testing data, and communications about formulation alternatives are the raw material for a design defect claim.
How fast they die: These documents are largely already preserved through prior litigation and protective orders. Access depends on the protective order status of each prior proceeding — some documents are public, some are sealed, some are available through prior litigation archives. Your lawyer’s ability to access this material depends on the specific case posture and the governing protective orders.
EPA Registration Files and Regulatory Submissions
The EPA registration files, labeling correspondence, and regulatory submissions for Roundup are public records. They define the federal regulatory framework and label-approval history central to the preemption analysis and to any remaining design claims. These are stable and accessible through EPA archives — they are not at risk of disappearing.
Expert Toxicology and Epidemiology Opinions
Expert opinions linking glyphosate exposure to NHL are the bridge between the science and your specific case. These opinions must be current and tied to the latest epidemiological data. The scientific literature continues to evolve, and expert opinions must reflect the most current research. These are not records that “die” — but they must be commissioned and prepared, which takes time.
The Insurance and Corporate Defense Playbook — What They Will Try
If you are considering a design defect claim or participating in the settlement, you need to know what the other side will do. Here are the plays you can expect — and how each one is countered.
Play 1: “The Supreme Court Said It’s Safe”
The defense will lean on the ruling itself, framing it as a judicial finding that Roundup is safe. It is not. The ruling is about preemption — whether federal pesticide labeling law overrides state warning requirements. The Court did not evaluate the scientific evidence of whether glyphosate causes cancer. It did not rule on the safety of the product. It ruled on which level of government controls the label.
The counter: The Supreme Court’s ruling is about legal preemption, not scientific safety. The IARC classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” still stands. The epidemiological evidence still stands. The design defect theory — which asks whether the product’s formulation is unreasonably dangerous — was expressly left open by the Court. A product whose label the EPA approved can still be defectively designed.
Play 2: “The EPA Says It’s Not Carcinogenic”
The defense will cite the EPA’s determination that glyphosate is “not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.” This is a powerful argument in front of a jury — the federal government’s own environmental agency says the product is safe.
The counter: Two respected scientific bodies reached different conclusions. The IARC — the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm — classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic.” The EPA and IARC used different methodologies and evaluated different evidence. A design defect claim does not depend on the EPA being wrong about the label — it depends on whether the product’s formulation poses foreseeable risks that a safer alternative design could have reduced. The scientific debate is real, and a jury is entitled to hear both sides.
Play 3: “Your Cancer Came From Something Else”
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has multiple known and suspected causes, and many cases are classified as idiopathic — meaning no specific cause is identified. The defense will argue that your NHL came from a genetic predisposition, a viral infection, an immune condition, another environmental exposure, or pure chance — not from Roundup.
The counter: This is the causation battleground in every toxic tort case. The strength of your response depends entirely on the quality of your exposure documentation. A person who can prove they used Roundup regularly for twenty years — with purchase records, witness statements, and employment or community records — presents a far stronger specific-causation case than someone who says “I used it sometimes.” Dose reconstruction, the epidemiological literature, and expert testimony on specific causation are the tools. The stronger the exposure evidence, the harder it is for the defense to wave your cancer away as coincidence.
Play 4: The Quick Settlement Offer
If you are eligible for the $7.25 billion class-action settlement, you may receive a settlement offer that seems like a resolution. It may arrive with paperwork that feels like it closes the matter. Before you sign anything, you need to understand what you are giving up and whether the settlement amount reflects the full value of your claim — including future medical costs, lost earning capacity, and pain and suffering. A settlement that resolves your claim for less than its full value, signed before the full picture is clear, is exactly what the defense is counting on.
The counter: Never sign a release or accept a settlement without a lawyer reviewing the terms. The settlement may be the right path — but it may also be worth less than what a design defect verdict could produce in the right venue with the right evidence. The only way to know is to evaluate both options with someone who has the training to compare them.
What Your Case May Be Worth — Honest Numbers
Case value in the post-ruling landscape depends on which pathway your case takes and how strong your evidence is.
Failure-to-warn claims: $0. These claims are now preempted. A failure-to-warn case filed today will be dismissed. The $1.25 million verdict in the St. Louis community spray operator’s case — which was a failure-to-warn verdict — is effectively vacated. That theory is closed.
Design defect verdicts: potentially $1 million to $5 million or more in a plaintiff-friendly venue with strong exposure evidence and a confirmed NHL diagnosis. This range depends on the jurisdiction, the strength of the causation evidence, the severity of the injury and treatment course, whether punitive damages are available in the target jurisdiction, and applicable damage caps. Design defect is harder to prove than failure-to-warn — but a successful verdict in the right venue with strong evidence could reach or exceed the verdicts that were common under the failure-to-warn theory.
The $7.25 billion settlement: an alternative but likely reduced per-claimant pathway. The settlement provides structured compensation governed by its own terms and eligibility criteria. The per-claimant amount will depend on the number of qualifying claimants, the severity of each claimant’s injury, the strength of exposure documentation, and the settlement’s payment schedule. The settlement trades the uncertainty and cost of individual litigation for payment certainty — but that certainty typically comes at a discount compared to a full trial verdict. For many claimants, the settlement is the more practical path. For others, individual design defect litigation may produce a higher recovery. The decision depends on the specific facts of each case.
Punitive damages remain theoretically available in design defect cases in jurisdictions that permit them, subject to applicable state caps and constitutional limitations. Whether punitive damages are available in a specific Missouri design defect case depends on the current state of Missouri’s punitive damages statute and any caps that apply — these rules are volatile and should be confirmed at the time of filing.
The honest summary: preemption of the primary litigation theory dramatically reduced overall case value for new plaintiffs. Design defect is harder to prove and less frequently litigated than failure-to-warn. But it is not a dead end. Value depends heavily on exposure documentation, medical causation strength, and whether the target jurisdiction permits punitive damages for design defect claims against agrochemical manufacturers.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
How a Design Defect Case Is Actually Built — The Proof Story
Here is how a Roundup design defect case is constructed from the ground up, if you choose that path instead of the settlement.
Week one: The preservation letter goes out — not to Monsanto or Bayer (they have already produced millions of pages in prior litigation), but to every entity that holds your personal exposure evidence. Your employer’s HR department. The neighborhood association. The hardware store where you bought Roundup for years. The letter tells them: do not destroy any records related to this person’s purchase or use of glyphosate products. This freezes the evidence before it can quietly disappear.
Weeks two through four: The full medical record is pulled — every pathology report, every chemotherapy treatment note, every imaging study, every follow-up visit. The record is assembled chronologically. The NHL subtype is confirmed. The treatment course is documented. The costs are totaled.
Months one through three: The exposure reconstruction begins. A toxicologist or industrial hygienist reviews your usage history — how often you applied Roundup, what concentration, what application method (spray, wipe, concentrate), what protective equipment (if any) you wore, and how long each application session lasted. This expert builds a dose estimate: roughly how much glyphosate you were exposed to, over how many years, and through what route (dermal, inhalation, ingestion).
Months three through six: Expert opinions are commissioned. A formulation chemist reviews the product design and evaluates whether safer alternative formulations existed at the time of marketing — different surfactants, different concentrations, different delivery systems, or entirely different herbicidal chemistries that could have achieved the same weed-control result with lower carcinogenic risk. A toxicologist and epidemiologist review the scientific literature linking glyphosate to NHL and prepare opinions on general causation (does glyphosate cause NHL in humans) and specific causation (did this plaintiff’s documented exposure cause their diagnosed NHL).
Months six through twelve: Discovery in the lawsuit — if one is filed — targets Monsanto’s internal research on formulation alternatives, toxicity data comparing glyphosate to other herbicide chemistries, and post-acquisition Bayer communications about product redesign. The internal documents that have already been produced in prior cases are obtained through prior litigation archives, subject to protective order restrictions. New discovery seeks any documents not previously produced.
The trial: If the case goes to trial, the jury hears the design defect theory — not the warning label theory. The experts testify. The internal corporate documents are presented. The exposure reconstruction is laid out. The medical record is entered into evidence. The jury decides whether the product’s design was unreasonably dangerous and whether that design caused the plaintiff’s cancer.
This is not a fast process. It is not a guaranteed process. But it is a real one — and the Supreme Court expressly left it open.
The $7.25 Billion Settlement — What You Need to Know
Bayer has stated that the Supreme Court ruling should result in the dismissal of failure-to-warn lawsuits and that the company plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.
The settlement operates as a separate administrative compensation framework — not a trial, and not a traditional lawsuit. It is governed by its own terms, eligibility criteria, and court approval processes. The settlement represents Bayer’s strategic decision to trade the uncertainty and cost of defending thousands of individual lawsuits for a structured, defined payout — one that likely compensates claimants at a reduced per-person level compared to a full trial verdict, but with far greater certainty and speed.
What this means for you:
- Eligibility: You must meet the settlement’s eligibility criteria, which typically include a confirmed NHL diagnosis and documented Roundup exposure. The specific criteria are governed by the settlement terms and should be reviewed with a lawyer.
- Timeline: Settlement registration deadlines are running. The exact deadline depends on the settlement’s current status and any court orders governing the claims process. This is a real, dated window — not an open-ended offer.
- Amount: The per-claimant amount depends on the settlement’s payment structure, the number of qualifying claimants, and the severity of each claimant’s injury. The $7.25 billion is the total fund — not the amount any individual receives.
- Trade-off: Participating in the settlement typically means giving up the right to pursue individual litigation — including design defect claims. You are trading the potential for a higher individual verdict for the certainty of a structured payment. Whether that trade is right for you depends on the strength of your individual case, your risk tolerance, and the specific terms of the settlement.
- Legal review: Never enter a settlement without a lawyer reviewing the terms. The settlement paperwork may include releases that bar future claims. The terms may undervalue your specific case. The only way to know is to have someone who understands the full landscape evaluate both options — settlement versus individual design defect litigation — and tell you honestly which is better for your situation.
Why St. Louis, Missouri Matters in This Story
The lead case before the Supreme Court was filed by a Missouri resident. He served as his historic neighborhood association’s volunteer spray operator, applying Roundup to parks in his St. Louis community over a two-decade period. A jury in Missouri agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. He never received the money as his case was appealed. His cancer is in remission. He said the biggest disappointment was not his own lost compensation but the thousands of cases like his that will not see a courtroom now.
St. Louis is not just where this plaintiff lived. It is where Monsanto was historically headquartered — where Roundup was born, where the corporate decisions about its formulation and marketing were made, where the internal research was conducted. Missouri state courts, with their familiarity with Monsanto and the Roundup litigation, produced several plaintiff verdicts before this federal preemption ruling. The 22nd Judicial Circuit in St. Louis City and the St. Louis County courts were significant venues in the nationwide litigation.
The Supreme Court’s ruling applies nationwide — it does not single out Missouri. But the ruling hits St. Louis particularly hard because this was a major venue for plaintiff verdicts, and because the community connection to Monsanto made the cases here especially resonant. A St. Louis jury hearing a Roundup case was a jury hearing about a product made by a company that was, for decades, their neighbor.
For design defect claims going forward, Missouri’s risk-utility test and pure comparative fault framework will govern cases filed in Missouri courts. The question for any Missouri design defect case is whether a jury in this community — which knows Monsanto, which knows Roundup, which saw the prior verdicts — will be willing to find that the product’s formulation was unreasonably dangerous, even though the EPA approved the label.
Your First 72 Hours — What to Do Now
If you used Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, here is what you should do in the next 72 hours — not next month, not after you “feel better,” not after the news settles down.
1. Gather your exposure evidence today. Find every receipt, credit card statement, store loyalty record, employment record, neighborhood association document, garden journal, or personal note that shows you purchased or used Roundup. Photograph them. Scan them. Store them in two places. If you applied Roundup as a volunteer or employee, contact the organization and ask whether they retain records of your service. Do this before those records are purged.
2. Get your complete medical record. Contact every treating physician, every hospital, every imaging center, every lab that has been part of your NHL diagnosis and treatment. Request your complete records — pathology reports, treatment notes, imaging studies, blood work, follow-up visits. You are entitled to your own medical records. Some providers charge a fee. Pay it. Get the records.
3. Write down your exposure history. While your memory is fresh — or as fresh as it will ever be — write down everything you can recall about your Roundup use: when you started, when you stopped, how often you used it, what size containers you bought, where you bought them, what you used it for (lawn, garden, parks, work), what equipment you used (pump sprayer, hose-end sprayer, concentrate mixer), whether you wore protective equipment, and whether anyone else can confirm your usage. This document — your personal exposure history — is evidence. Date it. Sign it.
4. Do not sign anything from Bayer, Monsanto, or any claims administrator. If you receive settlement paperwork, a release, a questionnaire, or any document that asks you to agree to terms or give up rights, do not sign it without a lawyer reviewing it. The settlement may be the right path for you — but signing without understanding what you are giving up is exactly how strong claims become weak ones.
5. Do not post about your case on social media. Everything you post is discoverable. A photograph of you doing yard work after your diagnosis, a comment about feeling “fine,” a post about your medical treatment — all of it can be taken out of context and used against you. Set your accounts to private. Better yet, stop posting about your health, your Roundup use, or your legal situation entirely.
6. Call a lawyer. Not next week. Now. Settlement registration deadlines are running. Statutes of limitations on design defect claims are running. Evidence is dying. The day you call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you. The consultation is free. The call costs nothing. And if we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you — and point you toward someone who is.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still sue Monsanto or Bayer if I used Roundup and got non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma?
Yes — but the path changed. The Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling blocks failure-to-warn claims (the theory that the company should have warned you about cancer risk). Design defect claims — arguing the product’s chemical formulation itself is unreasonably dangerous — survived the ruling and remain viable. The $7.25 billion class-action settlement is also available as an alternative pathway. Which route is right for you depends on your exposure history, your medical evidence, and the strength of your individual case.
What did the Supreme Court actually decide?
The Court held that FIFRA — the federal pesticide labeling law — preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA approved a product label without requiring the warning a plaintiff seeks. Because the EPA found glyphosate “not likely” to be carcinogenic and approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, state courts cannot impose a different or additional warning obligation on the manufacturer. The ruling applies nationwide to all state-court failure-to-warn claims involving EPA-registered pesticide products.
Does the ruling mean Roundup is safe?
No. The ruling is about legal preemption — which level of government controls pesticide labeling — not about whether glyphosate causes cancer. The IARC classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” still stands. The scientific debate between the EPA’s “not likely” determination and the IARC’s “probably carcinogenic” classification is unresolved. The Supreme Court did not evaluate the scientific evidence. It ruled on the legal question of whether federal labeling law overrides state warning requirements.
What is a design defect claim and how is it different from failure to warn?
A failure-to-warn claim argues the company should have warned consumers about a danger. A design defect claim argues the product itself is unreasonably dangerous because of how it was formulated — and that a safer alternative design existed that the company chose not to use. Design defect does not depend on the label. It asks whether the product’s design poses foreseeable risks that could have been reduced by a reasonable alternative. The Supreme Court expressly left this theory open.
How much is my Roundup case worth?
Case value depends on which pathway you take. Failure-to-warn claims are now worth $0 — they are preempted. Design defect verdicts in plaintiff-friendly venues with strong exposure evidence and confirmed NHL could range from $1 million to $5 million or more, depending on the jurisdiction, injury severity, and whether punitive damages are available. The $7.25 billion settlement provides a structured but likely reduced per-claimant payment. The exact value of your case depends on your specific facts and must be evaluated individually.
How long do I have to file a Roundup lawsuit?
The statute of limitations is jurisdiction-specific. Missouri’s personal injury statute of limitations is among the longer in the nation, and the discovery rule — which starts the clock when you knew or should have known of the injury and its cause — is particularly important for latent diseases like NHL that may appear years after exposure. But deadlines are running, and settlement registration deadlines have their own separate timelines. Do not assume you have plenty of time. Confirm the specific deadline for your situation with a lawyer immediately.
Should I participate in the $7.25 billion settlement or file an individual lawsuit?
This depends on your individual case. The settlement offers payment certainty — you know you will receive something, and you know roughly when. But the per-claimant amount is likely lower than a successful trial verdict. Individual design defect litigation offers the potential for a higher recovery but carries the risk of losing, the cost and time of litigation, and the higher evidentiary burden of proving design defect. The only way to know which is right for you is to have a lawyer evaluate both options in light of your specific exposure history, medical evidence, and the current settlement terms.
What evidence do I need for a Roundup case?
You need three categories of evidence. First, exposure documentation — receipts, purchase records, employment records, neighborhood association records, witness statements — proving you used Roundup, how much, how often, and for how long. Second, complete medical records — pathology reports, treatment records, imaging, follow-up — proving your NHL diagnosis, treatment, and current status. Third, expert testimony — from a toxicologist, epidemiologist, and formulation chemist — linking your documented exposure to your diagnosed cancer and evaluating whether the product’s design was unreasonably dangerous. The exposure evidence is the most time-sensitive — it is dying as you read this.
I used Roundup years ago and just got diagnosed with NHL. Is it too late to sue?
Not necessarily. The discovery rule in toxic tort cases often means the statute of limitations does not start running until you knew or should have known that your injury was connected to the exposure. If you only recently received an NHL diagnosis and only recently learned of the possible connection to Roundup, your clock may have just started. But this is jurisdiction-specific and fact-dependent — do not assume you have time. Talk to a lawyer now.
What if I already filed a failure-to-warn lawsuit and it was dismissed?
If your failure-to-warn case was dismissed based on the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling, you may be able to refile on design defect grounds — if the statute of limitations has not expired and if the court’s dismissal did not bar all claims. The lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case indicated he is considering refiling on design defect grounds. Whether you can refile depends on the specific language of the dismissal order, the statute of limitations in your jurisdiction, and whether your original complaint included design defect claims or only failure-to-warn claims. A lawyer can evaluate your options.
Who We Are — The Attorney911 Trial Team
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a trial firm that takes catastrophic injury, toxic tort, and wrongful death cases. We work on contingency: 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The call costs nothing.
Ralph P. Manginello is our Managing Partner — 27+ years of practice, admitted in Texas and federal court. Ralph was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he knows how to find the story the evidence tells before the other side does. He has spent his career in courtrooms, including federal court, fighting for people who were hurt by products and companies that should have known better. He is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Houston Bar Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, among others. He leads the active hazing lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas. He speaks Spanish.
Lupe Peña is our Associate Attorney — a former insurance-defense attorney who spent years inside a national defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like you. Lupe knows how the other side values a claim because he used to be the one doing the valuing. He knows the recorded-statement trap, the IME-doctor selection, the surveillance, and the delay tactics — from the inside. Now he uses that knowledge for injured clients. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
For toxic tort cases, we bring the same approach we bring to every catastrophic injury case: the preservation letter goes out the day you call. The evidence is identified and frozen before it can disappear. The medical record is assembled completely. The experts are commissioned early. The corporate documents are pursued through every available channel. And the case is built — piece by piece, document by document, witness by witness — until the number at the end reflects the full measure of what was taken.
We do not promise results. We promise the work.
If you or someone you love used Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, call us. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And we do not get paid unless we win your case.
1-888-ATTY-911 — 24/7, live staff, not an answering service.
Hablamos Español.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The statute of limitations in your jurisdiction may be shorter or longer than you expect. Settlement deadlines are running. Evidence is disappearing. The sooner you call, the more we can do.
