The Supreme Court Just Changed Every Roundup Cancer Case — Here Is What It Means for You
You used Roundup. Maybe for years — on your yard, your garden, the parks in your neighborhood, the grounds where you worked. And then the diagnosis came: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the blood and lymph system that changes everything about how the rest of your life looks. You may have already heard that a jury in St. Louis awarded a Missouri man $1.25 million after finding the company failed to warn him about the cancer risk. You may have even filed a claim, or been told you had one.
And now the news says the Supreme Court just blocked thousands of these lawsuits.
We need to talk about what that actually means — because what the headlines say happened and what actually happened to your rights are two different things. The ruling closed one road. It did not close every road. And the company that made this product has set aside sixteen billion dollars — which tells you they understand the fight is not over, even if their lawyers just won a major battle.
This page is for one person: someone in St. Louis, or anywhere in Missouri, who used Roundup, developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and is now reading the news at 2 a.m. wondering whether they still have a case. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort cases and the catastrophic injuries they cause. And what we are going to do here is tell you the truth: what the ruling blocks, what it does not block, what your options are now, and what you should do in the next few weeks — not the next few months, because some of the proof you need is already disappearing.
What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled on June 25, 2026
On June 25, 2026, the United States Supreme Court sided with Bayer — the German agrochemical giant that acquired Monsanto, the original maker of Roundup, in 2018 — in a ruling that blocks thousands of state-court lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn users that the product could cause cancer.
The ruling rests on a federal legal doctrine called preemption. Here is how it works in plain language. Roundup’s active ingredient is a chemical called glyphosate. Under a federal law called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — known as FIFRA — the Environmental Protection Agency must register every pesticide sold in the United States and approve the label that goes on the container. That label is the federal government’s official word on what the product does, how to use it safely, and what dangers users need to know about.
The EPA reviewed glyphosate and determined that it is “not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.” Based on that determination, the EPA approved a Roundup label that did not include a cancer warning. Bayer’s argument to the Supreme Court was straightforward: if the federal government, through the EPA, approved a label without a cancer warning, then a state court should not be allowed to say the company was legally required to add one. Imposing a state-law duty to warn about cancer, Bayer argued, would directly conflict with the federal label the EPA approved.
The Supreme Court agreed.
The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that glyphosate is “not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed” and approved a label without a cancer warning, creating the preemption basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling.
This means that the primary legal theory behind nearly every Roundup cancer verdict — the claim that the company failed to warn users about cancer risks — is now largely foreclosed in state court. The federal label approval, the Court held, overrides state warning requirements. A state jury cannot be told that the company should have put a cancer warning on a label the EPA specifically approved without one.
The test case before the Court was filed by a Missouri resident who served as his historic St. Louis neighborhood association’s designated Roundup applicator for more than twenty years, spraying the product on parks in his community. He developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him and awarded him $1.25 million. That verdict — and the legal theory behind it — is what the Supreme Court’s ruling now blocks.
But here is what the ruling did not do, and this is where your rights live.
Can I Still File a Roundup Lawsuit After This Ruling?
Yes — but the path is different, and narrower, than it was before June 25, 2026.
The Supreme Court’s ruling specifically blocks failure-to-warn claims in state court. That was the dominant theory across the approximately 200,000 Roundup-related claims filed against Bayer. It was the theory that produced the $1.25 million verdict in the St. Louis case. It was the theory behind the multibillion-dollar verdicts that came before.
But the ruling does not block every legal theory. According to the plaintiff’s counsel in the test case, the opinion may still allow claims challenging the way the product was designed — a theory that attacks the product formulation itself as unreasonably dangerous, rather than attacking the adequacy of the warning label. This is a critical distinction, and we will explain it in the next section.
The ruling also does not disturb Bayer’s existing settlement infrastructure. The company has set aside $16 billion to resolve cases and has proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement that a federal judge recently ordered to proceed in Missouri state court. For existing claimants, that settlement pipeline remains available. For people who have not yet filed, the question becomes which legal theory applies to their specific exposure profile and whether they qualify for the class-action settlement or should pursue individual litigation on a surviving theory.
And the ruling does not change the science. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The EPA reached the opposite conclusion. That scientific conflict remains the central battleground — but the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling shifts the debate from state juries to federal regulatory proceedings and to whatever legal theories survive preemption.
Which Claims Survive the Preemption Ruling
The failure-to-warn road is closed in state court. But several other legal theories may remain viable — and this is where the entire post-ruling Roundup litigation landscape now lives.
Design defect. This is the theory that the plaintiff’s counsel identified as potentially surviving the ruling. A design-defect claim does not say “you should have warned me.” It says “you should not have designed the product this way in the first place.” The claim attacks the product formulation itself — the combination of glyphosate and other ingredients that make up Roundup — as unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. If a safer alternative design existed and the company chose not to use it, that is a design-defect case, not a failure-to-warn case. The question courts will now wrestle with is whether FIFRA preemption reaches design-defect claims the same way it reaches warning claims — or whether a claim about how the product was built survives because it does not depend on what the label said.
Missouri’s product liability law recognizes strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty theories. Missouri has historically not imposed statutory caps on non-economic or punitive damages in product liability actions outside the medical malpractice context. That matters enormously here — if a design-defect claim survives and reaches a Missouri jury, the full range of damages may be available without a statutory ceiling compressing the recovery.
Negligence in testing and research. A claim that Monsanto conducted inadequate safety testing, suppressed unfavorable research, or failed to investigate glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential may survive if framed independently of labeling requirements. The distinction is critical: if the negligence claim ultimately depends on the argument that the company should have put a cancer warning on the label, it may be preempted. But if the negligence is about the company’s testing protocols — what it studied, what it chose not to study, what its own scientists found and what management did with those findings — that is a claim about corporate conduct that may exist independently of the EPA-approved label.
Breach of implied warranty. Claims that the product was not merchantable or fit for its ordinary purpose provide an alternative theory not directly dependent on the warning-label adequacy that the Supreme Court preempted. Every product comes with an implied promise that it is reasonably safe for its intended use. If Roundup was not — if the formulation itself was unreasonably dangerous for weed-killing — that promise was broken, and the breach is not about what the label said or did not say.
Class-action settlement claims. For existing and potential claimants, participation in the proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement pending in Missouri state court provides a path to compensation outside of individual litigation. This is not a lawsuit theory — it is a settlement mechanism. But for many people, especially those whose exposure history is harder to document or whose case would be expensive to litigate individually, the settlement may be the most realistic route to recovery.
The strategic question for every person reading this page is the same: which of these surviving theories applies to your specific situation, and is the settlement or individual litigation the better course? That decision depends on your exposure history, your medical documentation, the strength of your causation evidence, and the deadlines that may be running. This is why the conversation with a lawyer needs to happen now, not after you have finished processing the news.
The $7.25 Billion Class-Action Settlement — Should You Join?
Bayer has proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement to resolve many of the remaining Roundup claims. A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed settlement will be heard in Missouri state court — reinforcing Missouri’s central role in the remaining Roundup litigation landscape. This settlement is separate from the $16 billion Bayer has already committed to resolve prior cases.
Here is what you need to understand about the settlement, honestly and without exaggeration.
If the settlement proceeds and you are part of the class, your recovery would be a share of the $7.25 billion pool. With approximately 200,000 claims pending, a simple division produces a rough average of about $36,000 per claim before attorney fees and allocation adjustments. That is the floor — the low end of what participation might look like. The actual amount any individual receives will depend on allocation factors that the settlement framework will define, likely including the severity of the injury, the strength of the exposure history, and the timing of the claim.
The trade-off is the one every mass-tort settlement presents. The settlement offers certainty — a defined process, a defined pool of money, and a path to recovery that does not depend on winning a trial on a legal theory that has never been tested post-ruling. Individual litigation offers the possibility of a higher recovery — the $1.25 million verdict in the St. Louis case and the multibillion-dollar verdicts in other Roundup cases are the ceiling — but that ceiling now sits on top of a much narrower and less certain legal foundation. The failure-to-warn theory that produced those verdicts is blocked. A design-defect verdict is untested in the post-ruling landscape.
There is also a timing risk. The proposed settlement may have opt-in or opt-out deadlines that could affect your rights. If you wait, you risk losing both the settlement path and the litigation path. The settlement may close to new participants. The statute of limitations on an individual claim may continue to run. And the evidence that proves your exposure and your injury — the records, the receipts, the witness memories — continues to degrade.
This is not a decision to make alone, and it is not a decision to make based on a web page. But the information you need to make it starts here: understanding that both paths exist, that both have real deadlines, and that the longer you wait, the fewer options you have.
The Science War: IARC vs. EPA on Glyphosate and Cancer
The scientific conflict at the heart of the Roundup litigation did not begin with the Supreme Court ruling, and it did not end with it. Two of the most authoritative bodies in the world reached opposite conclusions about whether glyphosate causes cancer.
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer — IARC — classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” to humans. IARC is the specialized cancer agency of the WHO. Its classifications are based on systematic reviews of scientific evidence and are widely respected in the medical and public health communities. The “probably carcinogenic” designation — IARC Group 2A — means there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence in animals. It does not mean glyphosate definitely causes cancer in every person exposed to it. It means the evidence supports a probable link.
The EPA reached the opposite conclusion. The agency determined that glyphosate is “not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.” This determination was the basis for the EPA’s approval of a Roundup label without a cancer warning — and that label approval, in turn, was the basis for the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015, creating the scientific conflict underlying the litigation.
This split matters for your case in several ways. First, the IARC classification provides support for general causation — the scientific proposition that glyphosate can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A qualified expert can rely on the IARC finding, along with peer-reviewed epidemiological studies, to establish that the link between glyphosate and NHL is scientifically plausible. Second, the EPA’s contrary finding creates what lawyers call a Daubert battleground — a fight over whether the plaintiff’s expert testimony on causation is reliable enough to go to a jury. The defense will argue that the EPA’s determination should trump the IARC classification. The plaintiff’s experts will argue that IARC’s methodology and the underlying epidemiology support the causal link regardless of what the EPA concluded for labeling purposes.
The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling does not resolve this scientific conflict. It moves the conflict from state juries — who were hearing both sides and sometimes returning plaintiff verdicts — to federal regulatory proceedings, where the EPA’s label determination now controls the failure-to-warn question, and to whatever remaining legal theories allow the science to be put before a jury.
For your case, the practical implication is this: the science supporting the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma still exists. It has not been disproven. It has not been withdrawn. The IARC classification stands. The epidemiological studies stand. What has changed is the legal channel through which that science can be presented to a jury.
Missouri’s Legal Framework for Roundup Claims
Missouri has been the primary litigation venue for Roundup claims, and for good reason. The state’s legal framework has historically made it an attractive forum for toxic tort claimants — and several of those features remain relevant even after the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling.
Comparative negligence. Missouri follows pure comparative negligence. This means that if you are partly at fault — for example, because you voluntarily chose to use Roundup and perhaps did not wear protective equipment — your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, but it is not barred entirely. Even if a jury found you 50 percent at fault, you would still recover 50 percent of your damages. This is important for Roundup cases because the defense will argue that users voluntarily handled the product. In a pure comparative negligence state, that argument reduces recovery — it does not eliminate it.
Product liability theories. Missouri’s product liability law recognizes strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty theories. The state has historically not imposed statutory caps on non-economic or punitive damages in product liability actions outside the medical malpractice context. This means that if a surviving theory — such as design defect — reaches a Missouri jury, the full range of damages may be available without a statutory ceiling. That is a significant advantage over states that cap non-economic damages.
Venue. St. Louis has served as a primary venue for Roundup mass tort filings, due in part to Monsanto’s historic corporate presence in the region. St. Louis Circuit Court and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri have handled substantial portions of the Roundup docket. Jury pools in the city of St. Louis have historically been more receptive to plaintiff arguments than more defense-oriented suburban venues — a factor that matters when the surviving theories require a jury to weigh corporate conduct against scientific evidence.
Statute of limitations. Missouri’s personal injury filing deadline is among the longer in the nation — five years for most personal injury actions. For toxic exposure claims like Roundup, the discovery rule may extend the filing window, because the clock may not start running until the plaintiff knew or should have known that the injury was connected to the exposure. For a person diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who only later learned that glyphosate may have caused it, the filing deadline may run from the date of that discovery — not from the date of exposure, which could have been decades earlier. For wrongful death actions — if the lymphoma was fatal — a separate limitations period applies. Every case is different, and the specific deadline for your case depends on when you were diagnosed, when you learned of the possible Roundup connection, and the current Missouri rules. This is one of the first things a lawyer should confirm for you.
The class-action settlement venue. The proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement was recently ordered to proceed in Missouri state court. This reinforces Missouri’s central role in the remaining Roundup litigation landscape and means that Missouri law and Missouri procedures will govern the settlement process for many claimants.
The Defendant: Bayer and Monsanto — Who You Are Actually Fighting
Understanding who you are suing — and who is actually paying — is essential in any mass tort case. The corporate structure here is not simple, and it was designed that way for a reason.
Monsanto Company was the original developer and marketer of glyphosate-based Roundup. Monsanto designed the product formulation at issue. Monsanto’s scientists conducted the safety research. Monsanto authored the scientific and regulatory submissions that underlie the EPA’s label approval. Monsanto’s internal corporate documents — regarding what the company knew about glyphosate’s safety, when it knew it, and what it did with that knowledge — are the central discovery target in every surviving Roundup case. Monsanto is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer.
Bayer AG is the German parent corporation that acquired Monsanto in 2018. When Bayer bought Monsanto, it inherited the Roundup litigation — all of it, including the tidal wave of failure-to-warn claims that had already produced multibillion-dollar verdicts. Bayer is the named defendant in approximately 200,000 pending claims. Bayer allocated $16 billion in settlement reserves and proposed the $7.25 billion class-action resolution. Bayer is the deep-pocket defendant — a global pharmaceutical and agrochemical giant with the resources to pay substantial recoveries.
The EPA is not a tort defendant. It is the regulatory backdrop. The EPA’s pesticide registration and label approval form the preemption basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling. The EPA is not someone you sue in a Roundup case — but its regulatory determinations now shield the defendants from state failure-to-warn claims. The EPA’s determination that glyphosate is “not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed” is the factual foundation of the preemption defense.
What this means for you is that the company on the other side of your case is not a small business or a struggling manufacturer. It is one of the largest pharmaceutical and chemical companies in the world, with billions already set aside to resolve claims. Collectibility is strong. The question is not whether there is money to recover — there is. The question is which legal theory gets you to it, and whether you navigate the settlement or the litigation path.
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: The Injury Behind These Cases
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a cancer that begins in the lymphatic system — the body’s network of lymph nodes, spleen, thymus, and bone marrow that produces and transports white blood cells called lymphocytes. NHL occurs when these cells develop genetic mutations that cause them to grow uncontrollably and fail to die at the end of their normal life cycle. The abnormal cells accumulate, forming tumors in lymph nodes and other lymphatic tissue.
The disease has many subtypes — more than seventy — that range from indolent (slow-growing, sometimes manageable for years with monitoring) to aggressive (requiring immediate intensive treatment). The most common symptom is painless swelling of lymph nodes, typically in the neck, armpits, or groin. Other symptoms can include fatigue, unexplained weight loss, night sweats, and fever.
Diagnosis and treatment. NHL is diagnosed through lymph node biopsy, blood tests, bone marrow biopsy, and imaging studies (CT, PET). Treatment depends on the subtype and stage but typically involves chemotherapy — often a multi-drug regimen — and immunotherapy, which uses the body’s immune system to target cancer cells. A drug called rituximab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a specific protein on the surface of B-cell lymphocytes, is a mainstay of treatment for many NHL subtypes. In aggressive or relapsed cases, stem cell transplantation may be necessary — a grueling process that involves high-dose chemotherapy to destroy the bone marrow, followed by transplantation of stem cells to rebuild the blood-producing system. Newer treatments, including CAR-T cell therapy, offer hope for some patients but at enormous cost and with significant risks.
The cost. Treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma runs well into six figures — sometimes into seven figures for patients who require stem cell transplantation or extended immunotherapy. A single course of rituximab-based chemotherapy can cost tens of thousands of dollars per cycle. Stem cell transplantation can cost hundreds of thousands. And these are just the medical bills. The disease also takes people out of work — sometimes for months during treatment, sometimes permanently if the cancer or the treatment leaves them unable to perform their job. Future medical monitoring, ongoing therapy, and the risk of relapse add costs that stretch across years.
The proof problem. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has many potential causes — genetic factors, viral infections, other chemical exposures, immune system disorders. The defense in every Roundup case argues that the plaintiff’s cancer was idiopathic — meaning it arose spontaneously, without a identifiable cause — or that it was caused by something other than glyphosate. This is the specific-causation battleground. The plaintiff’s experts must establish not just that glyphosate can cause NHL (general causation, supported by the IARC classification) but that this particular plaintiff’s NHL was caused by their particular glyphosate exposure (specific causation, requiring dose reconstruction, exposure history, and exclusion of alternative causes). The defense will mine the medical record for any other risk factor — prior chemical exposures, family history, autoimmune conditions — and argue the cancer came from somewhere else.
The defense also exploits the latency of the disease. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma can take years to develop after exposure. The defense argues that the plaintiff cannot prove which exposure, in which year, caused the cancer — and that the inability to pinpoint the cause means the plaintiff cannot meet their burden. The counter is dose reconstruction: by documenting the duration, frequency, and volume of Roundup use over the plaintiff’s lifetime, a toxicologist can estimate cumulative glyphosate exposure and compare it to the levels associated with elevated NHL risk in epidemiological studies.
What Your Case May Be Worth After the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling has dramatically compressed the value of Roundup cases. We are going to tell you honestly what that means.
Before the ruling, the failure-to-warn theory was the primary value driver. The $1.25 million verdict in the St. Louis case is a baseline reference for what a Missouri jury was willing to award on that theory. The multibillion-dollar verdicts in other Roundup cases — which included significant punitive components based on allegations of corporate knowledge suppression — represented the ceiling. Those outcomes are unlikely to be replicated under the same failure-to-warn theory, because that theory is now preempted.
After the ruling, the case value range runs from approximately $25,000 on the low end to approximately $2,500,000 on the high end.
The low end — roughly $25,000 to $50,000 — reflects settlement-class participation under the proposed $7.25 billion class action. With approximately 200,000 claims in the pool, per-claim recovery averages around $36,000 before attorney fees and allocation adjustments. This is the certainty path: a defined process, a defined pool, and recovery without the risk of trial.
The high end — approaching $2,500,000 — reflects a design-defect verdict in a strong individual case with documented prolonged exposure, a confirmed NHL diagnosis, compelling corporate-document evidence of knowledge suppression, and a Missouri jury willing to award full compensatory and potentially punitive damages. But this theory is untested in the post-ruling landscape. No court has yet confirmed that a design-defect claim survives FIFRA preemption in the Roundup context. The uncertainty is real.
In between — roughly $100,000 to $750,000 — is where many individual cases may land: stronger than the settlement floor but not strong enough to sustain a design-defect trial, resolving through individual settlement negotiations that account for the surviving theories, the exposure history, and the medical documentation.
Collectibility is strong. Bayer has reserved $16 billion. The company remains a deep-pocket defendant. The question is not whether there is money — there is. The question is which legal channel gets you to it and how much of it you can recover given the narrowed liability landscape.
We do not promise any specific dollar amount. Every case depends on its own facts — the duration and intensity of your Roundup exposure, your medical history, the strength of your causation evidence, the legal theory your case is built on, and the venue where it is filed. What we can tell you is that the ruling has not eliminated recovery. It has narrowed the path. And narrowing the path means the quality of your legal representation matters more now than it ever has.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The Evidence You Need to Preserve — and How Fast It Disappears
The proof in a Roundup case lives in several different places, and each record has its own clock. Some are stable. Others are disappearing right now, while you read this.
Medical records — stable but degrading. Your complete medical records documenting your NHL diagnosis, pathology reports, treatment history, and prognosis are the foundation of both your damages and your specific causation. These records are retained per HIPAA and state retention requirements — they are not going to be destroyed. But the availability of your treating physicians for testimony degrades over years. A doctor who treated you five years ago may have retired, relocated, or become unavailable. The sooner your medical record is assembled and your treating physicians are identified, the stronger your case.
Exposure history — high risk, disappearing now. Your detailed exposure history — how long you used Roundup, how frequently, in what volume, by what application method, and with what protective equipment — is the backbone of your specific-causation case. This is the record that distinguishes someone who sprayed Roundup once on a few weeds from someone who, like the St. Louis plaintiff, was the designated “spray guy” for an entire neighborhood for twenty years. Witness memories fade. Neighbors who saw you spraying move away or pass away. Your own memory of specific products, dates, and quantities becomes less precise over time. Documenting your exposure history now — in writing, with as much specificity as you can recall — is one of the most important things you can do.
Purchase receipts and product containers — high risk, mostly gone. If you still have Roundup containers, photographs of containers, or purchase receipts, they are gold. They identify the specific product formulation you used and the label version that was on it. But residential receipts are rarely retained beyond a few years, and product containers are routinely discarded. If you have any of this evidence, photograph it immediately and store it safely. If you do not, do not assume the case is lost — exposure history can be reconstructed through witness testimony and usage patterns — but the physical evidence strengthens the case enormously.
Internal Monsanto/Bayer corporate documents — moderate risk. Internal corporate documents regarding glyphosate safety research, the company’s response to the IARC classification, and labeling decisions are critical for design-defect and negligence-in-testing theories. These documents are the discovery target in surviving claims. Litigation holds from existing discovery are in place, which means the company is legally required to preserve them. But internal custodian turnover and document retention policies create ongoing risk. The sooner your case is filed and discovery is initiated, the sooner these documents are locked down.
EPA registration filings — stable. Federal regulatory records are permanent public documents. The EPA’s registration filings, label approval correspondence, and FIFRA regulatory submissions define the scope of preemption and may contain admissions or internal disagreements that create exceptions to the preemption shield. These are not going to disappear. But they need to be analyzed by someone who understands the regulatory framework.
Expert witness analyses — high risk of shifting. General causation (the glyphosate-NHL link) and specific causation (your cancer from your exposure) require qualified expert testimony. The IARC classification provides general-causation support. The EPA’s contrary finding creates a Daubert battleground. Expert witness availability and scientific consensus may shift as post-ruling regulatory proceedings and new studies emerge. The expert landscape is not frozen — it is evolving.
The preservation letter — a formal demand that the defendant and any third parties freeze relevant evidence — is the tool that converts “this evidence might disappear” into “this evidence is legally protected.” The day you call a lawyer is the day that letter goes out.
What Bayer’s Lawyers Will Do Next — and How We Counter
Bayer’s legal strategy after this ruling is predictable. Here are the plays they will run, and the counter to each.
Play 1: Move to dismiss every failure-to-warn claim. Bayer will file motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on every case that was filed on a failure-to-warn theory, citing the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling. This is their strongest play — the ruling directly supports it.
Counter: We do not concede the failure-to-warn theory without examining whether any exception to preemption applies — for example, whether the EPA’s label approval contained internal disagreements or conditions that undermine the preemption shield, or whether any aspect of the warning claim is independent of the label. More importantly, we reframe the case on surviving theories — design defect, negligence in testing, breach of warranty — before the motion to dismiss becomes a motion for summary judgment on the entire case.
Play 2: Push every claimant toward the class-action settlement. Bayer will use the preemption ruling to create fear — the fear that your case is now worthless — and channel that fear toward acceptance of the $7.25 billion class-action settlement, which may pay individual claimants a fraction of what their cases were worth before the ruling.
Counter: We evaluate the settlement honestly. For some clients — those with weaker exposure histories, harder-to-prove causation, or cases that would be expensive to litigate individually — the settlement may be the right choice. For others — those with documented prolonged exposure, confirmed NHL, and strong corporate-document evidence — individual litigation on a surviving theory may produce a substantially higher recovery. The decision is yours. Our job is to give you the information to make it well, not to push you toward either path for our convenience.
Play 3: Challenge every design-defect claim as “failure-to-warn in disguise.” Bayer will argue that a design-defect claim about Roundup is really just a failure-to-warn claim repackaged — that the plaintiff is still saying “the product was dangerous and you should have told me,” just using different words. If the court agrees, the design-defect claim is preempted too.
Counter: A genuine design-defect claim does not depend on the label. It depends on the formulation — the specific combination of glyphosate and other ingredients that makes up Roundup — and whether a safer alternative design was feasible. We build the design-defect case around internal Monsanto documents showing the company considered or was aware of alternative formulations, and around expert testimony on whether the product as designed was unreasonably dangerous independent of any warning.
Play 4: Attack causation experts under Daubert. Bayer will challenge the plaintiff’s expert witnesses on causation, arguing that the IARC classification is insufficient to establish that glyphosate causes NHL and that the EPA’s contrary finding makes the expert opinion unreliable. If the court excludes the experts, the case is dismissed before it ever reaches a jury.
Counter: We select experts carefully — toxicologists and epidemiologists who can establish specific causation through dose reconstruction and who can explain the IARC methodology and the underlying epidemiology in terms a jury can understand. We also exploit the EPA-IARC split: the fact that two authoritative bodies reached opposite conclusions is itself evidence that the science is not settled — and unsettled science is for a jury to weigh, not for a court to exclude.
Play 5: Argue comparative fault. Bayer will argue that you voluntarily chose to use Roundup, that you could have worn protective equipment, and that you assumed the risk of using a chemical product.
Counter: Missouri follows pure comparative negligence — your recovery is reduced by your share of fault but is never barred entirely. And if the company knew about the cancer risk and did not warn you — even though the failure-to-warn claim is now preempted — that knowledge is still relevant to the design-defect and negligence claims. A company that knew its product was dangerous and chose not to design a safer version does not get to blame the consumer for using it.
The First Steps: What to Do Right Now
If you used Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, here is what you should do in the coming weeks — not the coming months.
1. Get your medical records together. Request your complete medical file from every treating physician, hospital, and cancer center — pathology reports, biopsy results, treatment records, imaging studies, and physician notes. These are your foundation. They are stable, but the sooner they are assembled, the sooner your case can be evaluated.
2. 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 did you start using it? How often did you use it — weekly, monthly, seasonally? What size containers did you buy? How did you apply it — pump sprayer, hose-end sprayer, ready-to-use bottle? Did you wear gloves, a mask, protective clothing? Where did you use it — your own yard, a neighbor’s yard, community parks, a workplace? Who else saw you using it? Every detail matters. This is the record that establishes your dose, and your dose is what connects your exposure to your cancer.
3. Photograph and preserve any physical evidence. If you still have Roundup containers — even empty ones — photograph them from every angle, including the label. If you have purchase receipts, store them safely. If you have photographs of yourself using Roundup, find them. Physical evidence is disappearing every day, and what exists today may not exist in six months.
4. Do not sign anything from Bayer, Monsanto, or any settlement administrator without having a lawyer review it. If you receive a settlement offer, a class-action notice, or any document that asks you to release claims, do not sign it until a lawyer has read it and explained what rights you are giving up. A quick check from a lawyer can tell you whether the offer is fair, whether you are being rushed, and whether you have options the document does not mention.
5. Do not post about your case on social media. Everything you post is discoverable. The defense will mine your social media for anything that can be used to minimize your exposure, question your diagnosis, or argue comparative fault. A photograph of you gardening without gloves, a post about feeling healthy, a comment about another possible cause of your cancer — all of these can be turned against you.
6. Call a lawyer. The call is free. The consultation is free. You do not pay anything unless we win your case. And the call starts the clock working for you instead of against you — because the preservation letter goes out the day you call, the evidence gets frozen, the medical records get assembled, and the exposure history gets documented while it is still available. Every day you wait is a day the evidence degrades, the memories fade, and the settlement deadlines get closer.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still file a Roundup lawsuit after the Supreme Court ruling?
Yes, but the legal theory is different. The Supreme Court blocked failure-to-warn claims in state court, which was the primary theory behind prior verdicts. However, design-defect claims, negligence-in-testing claims, and breach-of-warranty claims may survive. Additionally, the proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement provides a path to compensation outside of individual litigation. Which option is right for you depends on your exposure history, medical documentation, and the specific facts of your case.
Will my existing Roundup case be dismissed?
Not necessarily. If your case was filed on a failure-to-warn theory, Bayer will likely move to dismiss it based on the preemption ruling. However, your case may be amendable to include surviving theories — design defect, negligence in testing, or breach of warranty — that are not preempted. If your case is already in the settlement pipeline, the ruling does not disturb the settlement infrastructure. The specific answer depends on the procedural posture of your case, the theories pleaded, and the jurisdiction.
Should I join the $7.25 billion class-action settlement?
That depends on your individual circumstances. The settlement offers certainty — a defined process and a defined pool of money — but individual recovery may be modest (roughly $36,000 per claim as a rough average before fees and adjustments). Individual litigation on a surviving theory offers the potential for a higher recovery but carries significant uncertainty, because the surviving theories are untested in the post-ruling landscape. For some people, the settlement is the right choice. For others, individual litigation is better. This decision should be made with a lawyer who has evaluated your specific case.
What if I used Roundup but have not been diagnosed with cancer yet?
The injury in these cases is non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma — a specific cancer diagnosis. Without a diagnosis, there is no injury to compensate. However, if you have used Roundup extensively and are concerned about your risk, you should discuss your exposure history with your physician and monitor your health. If you are later diagnosed, the discovery rule in Missouri may mean the filing deadline runs from the date you learned of the connection between your illness and your Roundup use — not from the date of exposure.
How long do I have to file a Roundup lawsuit in Missouri?
Missouri’s personal injury filing deadline is among the longer in the nation — five years for most personal injury actions. For toxic exposure claims, the discovery rule may extend the filing window, because the clock may not start running until you knew or should have known that your injury was connected to the exposure. For wrongful death actions — if the lymphoma was fatal — a separate limitations period applies. Every case is different. The specific deadline for your case should be confirmed by a lawyer as soon as possible, because waiting risks losing the right to file entirely.
What if I was partly at fault for using Roundup?
Missouri follows pure comparative negligence, which means your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault but is never barred entirely. Even if a jury found you partially at fault for voluntarily using the product, you would still recover the portion of your damages attributable to the company’s conduct. The defense will argue comparative fault aggressively — every percentage point they pin on you is money off their payout — which is why documenting your exposure history and the company’s knowledge of the risk is so important.
Can I still get punitive damages after the ruling?
Punitive damages tied to failure-to-warn conduct face preemption barriers after the ruling. However, punitive damages tied to design-defect or testing-misconduct theories may remain viable — particularly if internal Monsanto corporate documents demonstrate that the company knew about the cancer risk, explored safer alternative formulations, and chose not to use them. Missouri has historically not capped punitive damages in product liability cases outside the medical malpractice context. Whether punitive damages are available in your specific case depends on the theory pursued and the evidence of corporate conduct.
What if I live in a state that passed a shield law?
Three states have reportedly passed statutes shielding Bayer from failure-to-warn liability, adding a legislative preemption layer on top of the judicial federal preemption ruling. If you live in one of those states, your failure-to-warn claims face both federal and state barriers. However, the shield laws typically address failure-to-warn claims specifically — they may not reach design-defect or negligence claims. And the class-action settlement remains available regardless of your state’s shield law. If you are unsure whether your state has a shield law, a lawyer can confirm this for you quickly.
What evidence do I need to prove my Roundup case?
The core evidence is: (1) your medical records documenting your NHL diagnosis, pathology, treatment, and prognosis; (2) your exposure history — the duration, frequency, volume, and method of your Roundup use; (3) any physical evidence — product containers, labels, purchase receipts, photographs; (4) expert testimony connecting your specific exposure to your specific cancer; and (5) internal corporate documents showing what Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s safety and when. You do not need to have all of this assembled before you call a lawyer. You need to have the raw materials — your memory, your medical file, and any documents you have kept — and the lawyer’s team assembles the rest.
Is it too late if I was exposed to Roundup years ago?
Not necessarily. The discovery rule in Missouri means the filing deadline may not start running until you knew or should have known that your cancer was connected to your Roundup exposure. If you were exposed decades ago but only learned of the possible connection after your diagnosis — or after hearing about the litigation — the clock may have started recently. But do not assume you have plenty of time. The discovery rule has limits, some states impose outer deadlines (statutes of repose) that can cut off a claim even before discovery, and the settlement deadlines may be independent of the filing deadline. The only safe move is to have a lawyer confirm the deadline for your specific case.
Why Attorney911 — and What the First Call Costs
Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — is a trial firm that takes Missouri cases, working with local counsel where required. We do not claim an office in Missouri. We do not claim a Missouri bar admission. What we bring is 27 years of trial experience, a toxic tort practice, and the specific knowledge of how mass-tort litigation works — from the corporate-document discovery that exposes what a company knew, to the expert-witness selection that wins causation fights, to the settlement evaluation that tells you whether to take the deal or go to trial.
Ralph P. Manginello is our Managing Partner — 27 years in courtrooms, including federal court, a journalist before he was a lawyer, a competitor who hates losing. He built this firm to take on the fights that require both depth and stamina — the cases where the company on the other side has billions of dollars and a team of lawyers whose job is to make you go away for as little as possible.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney — a former insurance-defense attorney who spent years inside a national defense firm, in the rooms where claims like yours are priced, where adjusters and their software decide how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like you. He sat on the other side of the table. Now he sits on yours. And he conducts full consultations in Spanish, without an interpreter — because we serve your family in the language you actually think in.
What the first call costs: nothing. The consultation is free. The case evaluation is free. You do not pay us a dime unless we win your case. Our fee is 33.33 percent before trial and 40 percent if the case goes to trial. If there is no recovery, there is no fee. That is not a marketing line — it is the structure of our practice, and it means we only eat what we kill.
What the first call feels like: like talking to someone who has done this before and who is not going to waste your time. We will ask about your Roundup use, your diagnosis, your treatment, and your timeline. We will tell you honestly whether we think you have a case, whether the settlement or individual litigation is the better path, and what the next steps are. If we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you that too — because a lawyer who takes every case is a lawyer who is not screening any of them.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911 — 1-888-288-9911. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will speak to a live person, not an answering service. Hablamos Español. The call is free. The consultation is free. And the day you call is the day the evidence starts working for you instead of disappearing.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. The specific deadline for your case, the legal theories available to you, and the value of your claim depend on facts that a lawyer must evaluate individually. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. If you or someone you love used Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, call us today — because the ruling changed the road, but it did not close it.