What the Supreme Court Just Did to Your Roundup Cancer Lawsuit in St. Louis, Missouri
You are reading this because you used Roundup. Maybe for years — on your farm, your landscaping route, your groundskeeping crew, your garden, your fence line. And then you got the diagnosis: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. And you filed, or you were about to file, or you were sitting in one of the 65,000 lawsuits still unresolved when the news broke. Now you are staring at a headline that says the Supreme Court just wiped out your case, Bayer’s stock is up 24 percent, and you do not know if you still have a claim.
We are going to tell you, clearly and honestly, what this ruling means, what it does not mean, and what you can still do. This page is legal information, not legal advice — but it is written by trial attorneys who have spent decades in courtrooms, who know how preemption doctrine works, who know how mass tort settlement funds operate, and who know what happens to people when a corporation the size of Bayer gets the ruling it spent years engineering.
Here is the first thing you need to hear: the Supreme Court did not find that glyphosate is safe. The World Health Organization’s cancer agency still classifies it as a probable human carcinogen. The EPA’s contrary position is itself scientifically contested. What the Court ruled is that federal pesticide labeling law — a regulatory framework — overrides your state’s right to demand a cancer warning on the label. That is a preemption ruling, not a scientific finding. Your cancer is still real. The science did not change. The legal door for one specific theory — failure to warn — did close. But other doors remain, and the $7.25 billion settlement fund Bayer is pushing for the remaining 65,000 claims is proof that Bayer itself knows this fight is not over.
If you or someone you love developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of Roundup exposure, call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we win your case. And we serve your family fully in Spanish. Hablamos Español.
The 7-2 Ruling: What SCOTUS Actually Held
In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that Bayer — through its subsidiary Monsanto, the original developer of Roundup — cannot be held liable under state failure-to-warn laws for alleged cancer risks from its glyphosate weedkiller because the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticate Act (FIFRA) preempts state labeling requirements where the EPA has approved the federal label without a cancer warning. The decision reversed a lower Missouri court’s $1.25 million verdict in favor of a St. Louis man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after approximately 20 years of glyphosate exposure.
Here is what that means in plain English. FIFRA is the federal law that governs how pesticides are registered, labeled, and sold in the United States. Under FIFRA, the EPA reviews pesticide products and approves their labels — including any safety warnings — before they can be sold. The EPA reviewed Roundup’s label and did not require a cancer warning. The EPA’s position is that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” So when Missouri courts allowed juries to hold Monsanto responsible for failing to put a cancer warning on Roundup — a warning the EPA specifically did not require — the Supreme Court said that state requirement conflicts with the federal labeling scheme.
FIFRA contains an express preemption provision prohibiting states from imposing labeling requirements that are in addition to or different from those required under federal law.
That one sentence is the engine of the entire ruling. The Court’s majority concluded that a state tort jury verdict requiring a cancer warning on Roundup’s label is a state “requirement” that is “in addition to or different from” what FIFRA authorized the EPA to mandate. Because the EPA approved the label without a cancer warning, states cannot — through their product liability laws — impose a different labeling obligation after the fact.
The case originated right here in St. Louis. The plaintiff’s verdict came from a Missouri state court, and the St. Louis City Circuit Court — the 22nd Judicial Circuit — has been one of the most significant litigation hubs in the country for Roundup and other mass tort product liability cases. Missouri’s venue rules, its urban jury pool, and its courts’ deep experience with complex pharmaceutical and chemical injury litigation made St. Louis a forum where plaintiffs nationwide historically chose to file. The Supreme Court’s preemption decision does not formally abolish that venue — but it neutralizes the venue advantage for the failure-to-warn theory that drove the majority of Roundup verdicts and settlements to date.
What the ruling did NOT do is equally important. The Court did not hold that glyphosate is safe. The Court did not hold that Monsanto never knew about cancer risks. The Court did not hold that all Roundup lawsuits are barred. The Court addressed one specific legal theory — failure to warn based on state labeling requirements — and held that it is preempted by federal law. Other legal theories, which we explain below, may survive.
The EPA vs. WHO Scientific Split That Created This Case
The entire Roundup litigation exists because two of the world’s leading scientific authorities disagree about whether glyphosate causes cancer.
The Environmental Protection Agency — the federal agency that administers FIFRA and approves pesticide labels — classifies glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” This is the position the Supreme Court majority relied on: if the EPA determined no cancer warning was needed, then the federal label is the federal label, and states cannot add to it.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” (Group 2A) in 2015. IARC’s classification was based on a review of scientific evidence — including studies of agricultural workers exposed to glyphosate formulations and laboratory evidence of genotoxicity. That classification has never been withdrawn. It remains the position of one of the world’s preeminent cancer research bodies.
This scientific conflict is not a minor disagreement. It is the load-bearing fact of the entire litigation. If the EPA and WHO agreed — either both saying it causes cancer or both saying it does not — there would be no preemption fight. The conflict is what created the gap between the federal label (no cancer warning, per EPA) and the state tort claims (cancer warning required, per plaintiffs who rely on IARC). The Supreme Court resolved that gap by choosing the federal regulatory position over the state tort system.
But here is what a trial attorney knows that a headline does not tell you: the EPA’s position is itself contested. The EPA’s cancer assessment of glyphosate has been the subject of scientific criticism, including allegations that the agency relied heavily on industry-funded studies while giving less weight to independent research. IARC’s process has also been criticized. The point is that the science is not settled — and a preemption ruling that locks in the EPA’s position does not make the EPA right. It makes the EPA’s label the legally controlling one.
For your case, this matters in two ways. First, the general causation evidence — the science linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma — has not been erased. It remains scientifically supported by IARC’s classification and by the epidemiological and toxicological literature. What has changed is the legal theory through which you can bring that science into a courtroom. Second, for any surviving legal theories (design defect, fraudulent concealment, negligent testing), the EPA-WHO split becomes a central piece of the trial narrative: a company that knew the world’s cancer authority saw a risk, that faced scientific disagreement, and that may have used the federal regulatory process to shield itself from accountability.
Can I Still Sue Bayer for Roundup Cancer?
Yes — but the path is different than it was before this ruling, and the primary theory that produced the largest verdicts has been eliminated.
The failure-to-warn theory — the claim that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on Roundup’s label — is now preempted by FIFRA where the EPA approved the label without such a warning. This was the theory that drove the majority of Roundup verdicts and the approximately $11 billion Bayer has already paid in settlements for roughly 100,000 lawsuits. With this theory gone, the landscape has fundamentally shifted.
But surviving legal theories exist. The critical post-ruling question — one that Missouri courts will now have to interpret — is whether the Supreme Court’s preemption holding is limited strictly to labeling claims or whether it sweeps more broadly to cover all state tort claims related to glyphosate safety. The scope of the opinion matters enormously. If the Court held only that state labeling requirements are preempted, then claims that do not depend on labeling adequacy may survive. If the Court’s reasoning extends to any state-law challenge to the safety of an EPA-registered pesticide, then the door closes much further.
We believe — and the structure of FIFRA’s preemption provision supports — that the ruling is targeted at labeling requirements specifically. FIFRA’s preemption provision addresses labeling and packaging requirements. Claims that challenge the design or formulation of the product, the conduct of the company in testing and reporting safety data, or the company’s representations to regulators and the public are not necessarily “labeling requirements” that FIFRA preempts.
The surviving theories we are evaluating include:
Design defect. A claim that Roundup’s formulation — the specific combination of glyphosate with surfactants and other ingredients that enhance absorption — was unreasonably dangerous in its design, independent of whether the label carried a cancer warning. This theory challenges the product itself, not the label. Whether it survives preemption depends on whether the SCOTUS opinion’s reasoning extends beyond labeling to all state safety requirements.
Fraudulent concealment. A claim that Monsanto intentionally suppressed or misrepresented scientific evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential to regulators and the public. This is a conduct-based theory — it targets what the company did with scientific information, not what the label said. It may not be directly preempted by FIFRA’s labeling provisions. And if fraudulent concealment can be proven, it carries the potential for punitive damages.
Negligent safety testing and risk assessment. A claim that Monsanto failed to conduct adequate long-term carcinogenicity studies or negligently evaluated safety data submitted to the EPA during the registration process. This theory goes to the quality and completeness of the science the company gave the regulator — not to the label the regulator approved.
Breach of implied warranty of merchantability. This may be partially preempted if it rests on inadequate labeling, but potentially viable to the extent it rests on the inherent dangerousness of the product formulation itself.
For anyone with a pending Roundup case or anyone considering one, the immediate question is not “is my case dead” but “which theory does my case now live on, and is that theory viable in my state’s courts?” That is a case-by-case evaluation that depends on your specific exposure history, your cancer diagnosis, the scope of the SCOTUS opinion, and how Missouri courts interpret the ruling’s reach.
If you have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and you used Roundup for years, call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. We will evaluate your situation honestly. If your case has a viable path through a surviving theory or through the settlement fund, we will tell you. If we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you that too.
The $7.25 Billion Settlement Fund: Who Qualifies and What It Pays
Even as Bayer celebrates the preemption ruling, the company has reportedly planned a $7.25 billion settlement fund for the approximately 65,000 remaining Roundup lawsuits. That is not charity. It is a strategic calculation: the preemption ruling eliminates the threat of multi-million-dollar jury verdicts on failure-to-warn claims, but it does not eliminate every legal theory, and fighting 65,000 individual cases — even weakened ones — is more expensive and unpredictable than settling them on a matrix.
Here is what the numbers tell us. A $7.25 billion fund divided across approximately 65,000 claimants produces an average per-claimant resolution of roughly $111,500. But that average is not what any individual claimant will receive. Settlement programs in mass tort cases use a matrix — a scoring system that evaluates each claimant’s exposure history, cancer subtype and severity, treatment intensity, age at diagnosis, economic losses, and prognosis — and assigns each claim to a tier with a corresponding dollar value.
The matrix factors that drive individual settlement values include:
Exposure intensity and duration. A farmer, landscaper, groundskeeper, or agricultural worker who mixed and sprayed Roundup daily for 20 years will score far higher than a homeowner who sprayed weeds along a driveway a few times a year. Occupational exposure — especially mixing, loading, and applying concentrated formulations without protective equipment — produces the highest exposure scores. Employment records, product purchase receipts, usage logs, and co-worker witness statements are the evidence that establishes this.
Cancer subtype and severity. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is not one disease. It is a family of blood cancers with dozens of subtypes, ranging from indolent (slow-growing, often treatable but rarely curable) to aggressive (fast-growing, potentially curable with intensive treatment but potentially fatal). Your specific subtype — diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, or others — drives both your treatment course and your settlement tier.
Treatment intensity and response. A patient who achieved remission after six cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy will score differently than a patient who required a stem cell transplant, or one whose cancer relapsed and required salvage therapy. The medical records — pathology reports, chemotherapy regimens, radiation records, stem cell transplant records, remission status, and prognosis — are the evidence that establishes this.
Age at diagnosis and economic loss. A 35-year-old agricultural worker who can never return to their occupation after aggressive NHL treatment carries a different economic loss profile than a 72-year-old retiree. Lost wages, diminished earning capacity, and the cost of future monitoring all factor into the matrix.
Potential survival of non-preempted theories. A claim that also pleads a viable design defect or fraudulent concealment theory — creating residual litigation risk for Bayer — may command a premium above the matrix baseline. The settlement value of a case that can still go to trial is higher than one that cannot.
The settlement matrix approach means that two people with NHL from Roundup exposure can receive wildly different amounts. The low end of the post-ruling range — for a claimant with moderate residential exposure, a treatable NHL subtype, and a favorable prognosis — may run from $25,000 to $100,000 through the settlement matrix. The high end — for a claimant with extensive occupational exposure, an aggressive NHL subtype requiring stem cell transplantation, significant economic loss, a younger age at diagnosis, and a case with surviving non-preempted theories in a favorable venue — may reach $300,000 to $1,500,000 or more.
Before the ruling, individual Roundup verdicts ranged from approximately $80 million to over $2 billion in punitive-inclusive awards. Those numbers were driven by the failure-to-warn theory, by punitive damages, and by the threat that a jury would see internal Monsanto documents and punish the company. The SCOTUS preemption ruling has collapsed that verdict ceiling by eliminating the failure-to-warn theory and removing the threat of the largest jury verdicts. The $7.25 billion settlement fund is the primary realistic recovery pathway for most remaining claimants. Individual values are determined by the matrix, not by jury sympathy.
This is an honest evaluation, not a sales pitch. The ruling changed what these cases are worth. The settlement fund is real, and meaningful recovery is achievable for people with documented exposure and confirmed NHL. But the era of the $2 billion Roundup verdict is over. Knowing that — and knowing where your case falls on the matrix — is the first step in deciding what to do.
Surviving Legal Theories: The Fight That Did Not Die
The failure-to-warn theory was the spine of the Roundup litigation. With it gone, the question every plaintiff’s attorney must answer is: what else do we have? The answer requires understanding what the SCOTUS opinion actually said about the scope of its preemption holding, and then building a case around theories that fall outside that scope.
Design defect is the most obvious surviving theory. A design defect claim says the product itself — its formulation, its ingredients, the way it was made — was unreasonably dangerous, regardless of what the label said. For Roundup, a design defect theory would argue that the specific formulation of glyphosate with its surfactants and adjuvants created a carcinogenic risk that a safer alternative design could have reduced. This is fundamentally different from arguing the label should have carried a warning. The question is whether the product was dangerous by design, not whether the label was adequate.
The defense to a design defect claim will be that the EPA’s registration of the product constitutes a federal determination that the product is safe, and that a state design defect verdict would conflict with that federal determination. This is a broader preemption argument than the one the Court made for labeling. Whether it succeeds depends on the exact scope of the SCOTUS opinion and how lower courts interpret it. Missouri courts have historically recognized strict liability design defect claims, and the question of whether those claims survive FIFRA preemption is now the front line of the post-ruling litigation.
Fraudulent concealment may be the most powerful surviving theory because it targets corporate conduct, not product design or labeling. The theory is that Monsanto knew — from its own research, from epidemiological data, from internal scientific deliberations — that glyphosate posed a carcinogenic risk, and that it intentionally suppressed, misrepresented, or concealed that information from the EPA, from regulators, and from the public. If Monsanto provided incomplete or misleading scientific information to the EPA during the FIFRA registration process, then the argument is that the EPA’s label approval was obtained through a regulatory process tainted by the company’s own concealment — and that the company should not be permitted to use the fruits of its own deception as a preemption shield.
This theory matters for two reasons. First, it is a conduct-based claim that may not be directly preempted by FIFRA’s labeling provisions — it challenges what the company told the regulator, not what the label says. Second, if fraudulent concealment can be proven, it supports punitive damages — and punitive damages, even in a post-ruling world, are what make a case expensive enough for Bayer to settle above the matrix baseline.
The discovery already produced in prior Roundup litigation — internal Monsanto emails, scientific study deliberations, communications with EPA, ghostwriting allegations, and the so-called “Monsanto Papers” — provides the raw material for fraudulent concealment theories. Much of this discovery is available through coordinated discovery in the existing litigation. New document requests should be filed promptly to ensure completeness.
Negligent safety testing and risk assessment is a third potential theory. It argues that Monsanto failed to conduct adequate long-term carcinogenicity studies or negligently evaluated the safety data it did have. This is different from fraudulent concealment — it does not require proof of intent to deceive, only that the company’s testing and evaluation fell below the standard of care. Like design defect, this theory’s survival depends on whether the SCOTUS opinion’s preemption reasoning extends beyond labeling to all state-law challenges to the safety of an EPA-registered pesticide.
The honest assessment is this: we do not yet know with certainty which of these theories will survive in Missouri courts. The SCOTUS opinion’s exact scope — whether it is a narrow labeling ruling or a broad safety-preemption ruling — will be litigated in the coming months and years. What we know is that the theories exist, that they are legally colorable, and that Bayer’s willingness to fund a $7.25 billion settlement for the remaining 65,000 cases suggests the company itself is not certain it can preempt every claim.
Missouri Law and Your Roundup Claim
The underlying case that the Supreme Court reversed came from a Missouri state court. Missouri product liability law has historically been one of the more plaintiff-favorable frameworks in the country, and St. Louis specifically has been a major venue for mass tort litigation.
Missouri courts have historically recognized strict product liability under three theories: failure to warn, design defect, and manufacturing defect. The failure-to-warn theory is now preempted by the SCOTUS ruling for Roundup claims where the EPA-approved label did not require a cancer warning. Design defect and manufacturing defect claims — to the extent they are not swept into the preemption holding — may remain viable under Missouri law.
Missouri applies a comparative fault system for allocating damages among responsible parties. Your own share of fault, if any, reduces your recovery. The precise bar — whether your recovery is eliminated if you are more than 50 percent at fault, or whether Missouri follows a different threshold — is a question that current Missouri law controls, and you should confirm the current standard with counsel. For most Roundup plaintiffs, comparative fault is not a significant factor — the plaintiff’s “fault” in using a commercially available weedkiller as directed is minimal. But the defense will argue that plaintiffs failed to wear protective equipment or used the product in ways the label did not intend, and every percentage point of fault they can pin on you reduces your recovery. This is one of many reasons why documenting your exposure history — how you used Roundup, what the label instructed, what protective equipment you were or were not provided — matters.
Missouri has historically permitted punitive damages in product liability cases where the defendant acted with deliberate indifference or conscious disregard for consumer safety. The preemption ruling significantly constrains punitive damages because the primary theory that supported them — failure to warn — has been eliminated. However, if conduct-based theories such as fraudulent concealment survive, punitive damages may still be available on those theories. Missouri’s approach to punitive damages in product liability cases, including any statutory limitations, is something counsel must confirm under current Missouri law.
The statute of limitations is critical. Missouri provides a five-year window for personal injury claims — one of the longer deadlines in the country. For toxic tort cases like Roundup, the clock generally does not start on the day you were exposed to glyphosate. It starts on the day you knew, or reasonably should have known, that your injury — your non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma — was connected to Roundup. For many people, that day is the day of their cancer diagnosis, or the day they first learned that Roundup might have caused their cancer. The discovery rule is well-established in toxic tort law, and it exists precisely because diseases like NHL can take years or decades to develop after exposure. But the discovery rule is not unlimited — some states impose an outer deadline (a statute of repose) that can cut off a claim even before discovery. Whether Missouri applies a repose period to toxic tort claims is something that must be confirmed under current Missouri law. Do not assume you have unlimited time.
For wrongful death claims — if someone you love died from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma potentially caused by Roundup exposure — Missouri provides a separate and shorter deadline. Wrongful death claims in Missouri must be filed within three years of the date of death. If your family member passed away and you are considering a claim, this shorter clock is already running. Do not wait.
The St. Louis venue advantage — the reason so many Roundup cases were filed in Missouri state courts — was based on the 22nd Judicial Circuit’s urban jury pool, its experience with complex toxic tort litigation, and Missouri’s historically generous approach to punitive damages. The SCOTUS preemption decision effectively neutralizes the venue advantage for failure-to-warn claims. But for surviving theories — design defect, fraudulent concealment — the venue may still matter, because the jury pool’s willingness to hold a corporation accountable for its conduct has not changed. What has changed is the legal theory the jury will be asked to evaluate.
The Corporate Defendant: Bayer AG and Monsanto
To understand this litigation, you need to understand the corporate structure behind the product.
Monsanto Company developed glyphosate in the 1970s and brought Roundup to market as one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. For decades, Monsanto designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, and distributed Roundup. The company conducted the safety studies, submitted the data to the EPA, obtained the FIFRA registration, and defended the product’s safety profile in the scientific literature and in court.
In 2018, Bayer AG — the German pharmaceutical and agricultural conglomerate — acquired Monsanto for approximately $63 billion. With the acquisition, Bayer assumed liability for Roundup-related claims. The approximately 100,000 lawsuits filed against Monsanto and Bayer, and the roughly $11 billion already paid in settlements, all flow from this corporate lineage.
The corporate structure matters for your case because it determines who you sue and where the money comes from. Bayer AG is the deep-pocketed parent — a global corporation with the resources to fund a $7.25 billion settlement and to litigate 65,000 remaining cases. Monsanto Company, as the original manufacturer, is the entity with the deepest connection to the product’s design, testing, and marketing. In many filings, both entities are named as defendants — Bayer as the successor that assumed liability, Monsanto as the entity that actually made the decisions.
The shell game in this litigation is less about hidden subsidiaries — as it is in some other defendant classes — and more about the legal strategy of using the federal regulatory framework as a shield. Bayer’s argument, which the Supreme Court accepted, is essentially this: we inherited a product that was registered with the EPA under federal law, the EPA approved the label, and therefore state courts cannot second-guess the federal label. This is a regulatory preemption defense, not a corporate structure defense — but it functions the same way: it puts distance between the corporation and accountability.
What makes Bayer’s position strategically interesting is the $7.25 billion settlement fund. If the preemption ruling truly eliminated all liability, there would be no reason to settle 65,000 cases for $7.25 billion. The settlement exists because Bayer’s own lawyers recognize residual risk — the surviving theories, the possibility that some courts will read the SCOTUS opinion narrowly, the cost of litigating 65,000 individual cases, and the unpredictability of juries in plaintiff-favorable venues like St. Louis even on narrowed theories. The settlement fund is not an admission of guilt. It is a risk-management calculation. But it is a calculation that tells you something important: even Bayer does not believe the preemption ruling ended the fight.
For anyone considering a claim, the corporate defendant analysis is straightforward: Bayer AG and Monsanto Company are the defendants. They are well-capitalized. The settlement fund is real. The question is not whether there is money to recover — there is. The question is how much your individual case is worth under the post-ruling landscape, and which path — settlement matrix enrollment or litigation on a surviving theory — gives you the best recovery.
What Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Actually Costs
The injury at the heart of every Roundup case is non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. To understand what these cases are worth, you need to understand what this disease does to a human body and a family’s finances.
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a cancer of the lymphatic system — specifically of lymphocytes, the white blood cells that are part of the immune system. NHL is not one disease. It is a category that includes more than 70 subtypes, ranging from indolent lymphomas that grow slowly and may not require immediate treatment to aggressive lymphomas that require urgent, intensive therapy.
The standard treatment for many forms of NHL is a chemotherapy regimen known as R-CHOP — a combination of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone — typically administered in six cycles over several months. For some subtypes, radiation therapy is added. For aggressive or relapsed cases, high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation — harvesting the patient’s own stem cells, administering near-lethal doses of chemotherapy to destroy the bone marrow, and then reinfusing the harvested cells to rebuild the immune system — may be necessary. For some patients, allogeneic stem cell transplants (using donor cells) are required, which involves even greater risk and cost.
The medical costs of NHL treatment can be staggering. A single course of R-CHOP chemotherapy, with associated hospital visits, laboratory testing, imaging, and supportive care, can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. A stem cell transplant — with the harvesting procedure, the high-dose chemotherapy, the weeks of hospitalization in a protected environment, the management of complications, and the months of follow-up — can push costs into the millions. And these are just the acute treatment costs. Long-term monitoring — regular CT scans, blood tests, and oncology visits to check for relapse — continues for years or for life.
Beyond the medical bills, NHL carries an economic toll that a settlement matrix must account for. Lost wages during treatment — months off work for chemotherapy, recovery from transplant, management of side effects. Diminished earning capacity — some patients never return to their prior occupation, either because of physical limitations, cognitive effects from chemotherapy (“chemo brain”), or the ongoing medical appointments that make full-time work impossible. For agricultural workers, landscapers, and groundskeepers — the occupational groups most heavily exposed to Roundup — the physical demands of the job may be incompatible with post-treatment limitations.
And then there is the human cost that no matrix can fully capture. The fear during the weeks between a biopsy and a diagnosis. The conversations with family members about what the diagnosis means. The loss of the life the patient had planned — the plans that are put on hold, the trips not taken, the time stolen by treatment and recovery. For a settlement matrix, these non-economic losses are assigned a dollar value based on severity tiers. For the patient and family, they are the real cost of the disease.
In the St. Louis area, NHL patients are typically treated at major medical centers with oncology departments and cancer programs. Facilities like Barnes-Jewish Hospital and its affiliated Siteman Cancer Center, or Saint Louis University Hospital, are the kinds of institutions where Roundup plaintiffs in this region receive their diagnosis, chemotherapy, and transplant care. The medical records from these facilities — pathology reports, treatment records, imaging, stem cell transplant documentation, remission status, and prognosis — are the evidence that establishes the severity of the injury and drives the settlement matrix tier assignment. These records need to be compiled and organized as part of any claim.
The SCOTUS ruling did not change the medicine. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is still a devastating diagnosis. The treatment is still brutal. The costs are still enormous. What the ruling changed is the legal framework through which a patient can seek compensation for those costs — and the ceiling on what that compensation might look like.
Case Value After the Ruling: What Your Claim Is Worth Now
Honesty about case value is not a sales tactic — it is a duty. Here is what Roundup cases are worth after the SCOTUS preemption ruling, based on the settlement fund structure and the post-ruling litigation landscape.
Before the ruling, individual Roundup verdicts ranged from approximately $80 million to over $2 billion in punitive-inclusive awards. These numbers were driven by the failure-to-warn theory (which allowed juries to see internal Monsanto documents about the company’s knowledge of cancer risks), by substantial punitive damages (which punished the company for its conduct), and by the threat that any verdict could be in the hundreds of millions. The approximately $11 billion Bayer paid to settle roughly 100,000 cases before this ruling reflected those verdict-driven economics — Bayer settled because the downside risk of a trial was catastrophic.
After the ruling, the verdict ceiling has collapsed. The failure-to-warn theory is gone. The largest punitive damage driver is weakened. The threat of a $2 billion verdict is removed. What remains is the $7.25 billion settlement fund for approximately 65,000 cases, individual litigation on surviving theories, and the matrix-driven settlement values that the fund produces.
Low range: $25,000 to $100,000. This is the settlement matrix enrollment value for a claimant with moderate residential exposure to Roundup (homeowner use, not occupational), a treatable NHL subtype that responded well to standard chemotherapy, favorable prognosis with remission achieved, and limited economic loss. These cases enroll in the settlement matrix, receive a tier assignment based on the documented exposure and medical records, and resolve without trial.
High range: $300,000 to $1,500,000. This is the potential value for a claimant with extensive occupational exposure (agricultural worker, landscaper, groundskeeper — daily mixing and application of concentrated Roundup formulations for many years), an aggressive NHL subtype requiring intensive treatment including stem cell transplantation, significant economic loss (lost wages, diminished earning capacity, young age at diagnosis), and a case that includes a potentially viable non-preempted theory such as design defect or fraudulent concealment. These cases may command a premium above the matrix baseline because they carry residual litigation risk — the threat that a Missouri jury, even on a narrowed theory, could return a significant verdict.
The $7.25 billion settlement fund represents the primary realistic recovery pathway for the majority of remaining claimants. With approximately 65,000 claims against a $7.25 billion fund, the mathematical average is approximately $111,500 per claimant. But the matrix system means most claimants will receive either more or less than this average, based on their individual scoring. The fund is not a flat per-person payout — it is a tiered system designed to pay more to the most severely injured and most heavily exposed claimants and less to those with weaker exposure documentation and less severe disease.
What drives the difference between a $25,000 case and a $1.5 million case is documentation. The exposure evidence — employment records showing years of Roundup use, purchase receipts, usage logs, co-worker statements corroborating frequency and duration. The medical evidence — pathology reports confirming the specific NHL subtype, treatment records showing the intensity of care, prognosis documentation. The economic evidence — wage records, tax returns, employer statements showing lost income and diminished capacity. A claimant who walks into the settlement matrix with a folder full of documented occupational exposure, a confirmed aggressive NHL diagnosis, a stem cell transplant record, and documented lost wages will score in a fundamentally different tier than one who shows up with a vague recollection of using Roundup at home and a lymphoma diagnosis with no treatment documentation.
This is why evidence preservation — which we address in detail below — is the single most important thing you can do right now. The ruling changed the legal theory. It did not change the fact that your case is only as strong as the paper trail behind it.
For families who have lost someone to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma potentially caused by Roundup exposure, wrongful death claims carry their own value structure. The economic losses in a fatal case — funeral expenses, loss of financial support, loss of the decedent’s future earnings — are recoverable, as are the human losses: the loss of society, companionship, and guidance that the family suffered. Missouri’s wrongful death statute provides the framework for these claims, and the three-year statute of limitations from the date of death is a hard deadline that cannot be missed.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The figures above are framework estimates based on the settlement fund structure and historical Roundup litigation data, not promises of what any individual case will produce. Your case value depends on your specific facts — your exposure, your cancer, your treatment, your losses — and on how the post-ruling legal landscape develops in Missouri.
Evidence You Must Preserve Right Now
Every Roundup case — whether it goes through the settlement matrix or into litigation on a surviving theory — lives or dies on documentation. The ruling did not change what evidence matters. It changed what that evidence is worth. Here is what you need to gather and protect, and how fast some of it can legally disappear.
Medical records. Your non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma diagnosis is the center of your case. You need: the pathology report that identified your specific NHL subtype; all treatment records — chemotherapy regimens, radiation records, immunotherapy, stem cell transplant records; imaging studies (CT, PET, MRI) that documented the disease and its response to treatment; laboratory records showing blood counts and tumor markers; your oncologist’s treatment notes and prognosis assessment; and your current remission or relapse status. Medical records are relatively stable — hospitals and oncology practices maintain these records for extended periods. But oncology records can be complex and scattered across multiple providers — a biopsy at one facility, chemotherapy at another, transplant at a third. Compiling a complete medical file requires targeted requests to each provider. Start now.
Exposure documentation. This is the evidence that connects your cancer to Roundup, and it is the evidence that degrades fastest. Employment records showing you worked in agriculture, landscaping, or groundskeeping — especially records that document your duties, the chemicals you handled, and the duration of your employment. Product purchase receipts — from farm supply stores, hardware stores, garden centers — showing you bought Roundup. Usage logs or application records, if your employer kept them. Co-worker witness statements — people who can corroborate that you mixed and sprayed Roundup, how often, for how many years, and what protective equipment you did or did not have. These records degrade over time. Businesses close. Retailer retention policies expire. Co-worker memories fade. You need to obtain this evidence within months, not years. Every month that passes, another receipt is discarded, another witness’s memory dims, another employer’s payroll records cycle out of retention.
Internal Monsanto/Bayer corporate documents. A significant body of internal corporate documents — emails, scientific study deliberations, communications with EPA, internal assessments of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity — has already been produced in prior Roundup litigation. Much of this discovery is available through coordinated discovery in the existing litigation. These documents are critical for surviving theories — especially fraudulent concealment and negligent testing — because they show what Monsanto knew about cancer risk and when. New document requests should be filed promptly to ensure completeness, particularly for any claims proceeding on non-preempted theories.
EPA registration files and FIFRA label approval history. The regulatory record — what Monsanto submitted to the EPA during the registration process, what the EPA reviewed, and what correspondence passed between the company and the agency — is relevant to both the preemption analysis and to surviving theories. If Monsanto provided incomplete or misleading information to the EPA, that goes to fraudulent concealment. These are public regulatory records, but specific submissions and correspondence may require Freedom of Information Act requests that can take months to fulfill. Start early.
Expert witness evaluations. General causation — whether glyphosate can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in humans — remains scientifically contested after the ruling. The IARC classification as a probable human carcinogen is the anchor for plaintiff-side causation opinions. Specific causation — whether your specific exposure to Roundup caused your specific cancer — requires an expert who can evaluate your exposure history, your cancer characteristics, and the scientific literature and render an opinion linking the two. Expert witnesses in toxicology, epidemiology, oncology, and industrial hygiene are essential. Retaining qualified experts early ensures their opinions can be developed within any applicable deadlines.
The fastest-dying evidence in a Roundup case is the exposure documentation. Medical records are relatively stable. Corporate documents have already been produced and are available through coordinated discovery. But purchase receipts, employment records, and witness memories — the evidence that proves you were exposed, for how long, and at what intensity — are degrading right now. Every day you wait is a day closer to the evidence that scores you in the right settlement tier disappearing.
The Claims Playbook: What Bayer’s Settlement Machine Will Do
Bayer and its claims administrators have been running a settlement program for Roundup cases for years. The SCOTUS ruling changes the leverage — Bayer now has less incentive to offer premium settlement values because the trial threat is reduced — but the playbook remains the same. Here is what to expect, and how to counter each move.
Play 1: “Your case is now worthless.” Within days of the ruling, claimants will hear — from Bayer’s claims administrators, from adjusters, from defense-oriented communications — that the Supreme Court killed their case and they should take whatever is offered. The counter: the ruling eliminated one legal theory, not all of them. The $7.25 billion settlement fund exists precisely because Bayer recognizes residual risk. Your case has value if you have documented exposure and a confirmed NHL diagnosis. Do not let the ruling’s headline scare you into accepting a fraction of what your case is worth. The settlement matrix scores claims based on exposure and injury severity, not on the status of the failure-to-warn theory.
Play 2: The matrix enrollment deadline squeeze. Settlement programs create enrollment deadlines — dates by which claimants must register, submit documentation, and opt into the matrix. These deadlines are designed to create urgency and to push claimants toward accepting matrix values rather than pursuing individual litigation. The counter: understand what the deadline actually requires and what you lose by missing it versus what you give up by rushing. A claim submitted with incomplete exposure documentation will score in a lower tier than one with comprehensive records. It may be better to take the time to gather complete documentation and accept a later submission than to rush in with a thin file. But do not assume deadlines are infinitely flexible — the settlement program has terms, and those terms include cutoffs. Know the deadline, know what you need by that deadline, and work toward both.
Play 3: The quick offer before full medical evaluation. A settlement offer may arrive before your medical treatment is complete — before you know whether your NHL will relapse, whether you will need a stem cell transplant, what your long-term prognosis is. Accepting a settlement before your medical picture is complete locks in a value that may be far below what your case is ultimately worth. The counter: do not settle until your treating oncologist has established your prognosis and your treatment course is documented. A patient who settles during remission and then relapses six months later has left significant value on the table. The settlement matrix accounts for treatment intensity and prognosis — but only if the treatment and prognosis are documented before the claim is submitted.
Play 4: The “take what we offer or get nothing at trial” argument. Bayer’s lawyers will argue that with failure-to-warn preempted, the chance of a significant verdict at trial is minimal, and the settlement matrix is the best available outcome. The counter: this argument has truth to it — the verdict ceiling has dropped — but it is not absolute. Surviving theories, if viable, can still produce verdicts. A Missouri jury that hears a fraudulent concealment theory — that Monsanto suppressed evidence of cancer risk — may still return a significant award. The question is whether your specific case has the facts to support a surviving theory and whether your lawyers are prepared to try it. For most claimants, the settlement matrix is the right path. For some — those with the strongest exposure evidence, the most aggressive disease, and the clearest path to a surviving theory — litigation may produce more. An honest evaluation of which path is right for you requires a lawyer who knows both the settlement matrix and the trial landscape.
Play 5: The recorded statement and “voluntary” information requests. Claims administrators may ask you to provide a recorded statement about your Roundup use, your medical history, and your exposure. These statements are not your friend. They are designed to pin you to a version of events that can be used to limit your claim — to establish inconsistencies, to minimize your exposure duration, to attribute your cancer to other causes. The counter: never give a recorded statement to the other side’s claims administrator without consulting a lawyer first. Provide documentary evidence — records, receipts, employer documentation — rather than narrative statements. Let the documents speak for you.
Lupe Peña, before he joined this firm, worked inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decide how to value, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He sat across the table from the people who run this playbook. He knows how claim valuation software works, how reserve-setting happens in the first 48 hours after a claim is filed, and how the delay tactics are designed to push claimants toward accepting less. He uses that knowledge for injured clients now. That insider perspective is exactly what you need when a company the size of Bayer is running a settlement machine against 65,000 people.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do Now
If you have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and you used Roundup — whether you have a pending lawsuit, whether you were about to file, or whether you just heard about this ruling and realized for the first time that your cancer might be connected to glyphosate — here is what you should do, in order.
Step 1: Get your medical records organized. Request your complete oncology file from every facility that has treated your non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This includes: the facility where your biopsy was performed and your pathology report was generated; the facility where your chemotherapy or radiation was administered; any facility where you underwent stem cell transplantation; your treating oncologist’s office notes and treatment summaries; all imaging studies (CT, PET, MRI); laboratory records; and your current remission or relapse status. These records are the foundation of your claim. Without them, no settlement matrix can score you and no litigation theory can prove damages.
Step 2: Document your Roundup exposure. Write down everything you can remember about your Roundup use — when you used it, where you used it, how frequently, for how many years, what concentrations, what equipment you used, what protective equipment you wore or did not wear. If your exposure was occupational, request your employment records from every employer where you used Roundup. If you have purchase receipts, gather them. If co-workers can corroborate your exposure, get their contact information and ask them to write down what they remember. This evidence degrades with every passing month — do this now, not later.
Step 3: Do not give a recorded statement to anyone. Not to Bayer’s claims administrators, not to an insurance adjuster, not to a “claims investigator” who calls you. Anything you say can and will be used to limit your claim. Provide documentary evidence — records, receipts, employment documentation — and let the documents speak. If someone calls you and asks you to “just tell us what happened” on a recording, say: “I will not give a recorded statement. I am consulting with a lawyer. You may send any request in writing.”
Step 4: Do not sign anything without reading it completely. No release, no settlement agreement, no enrollment form, no authorization. Some of these documents contain provisions that waive your rights permanently. A quick settlement check that arrives with a release printed on the back — before your full medical evaluation is complete — is not a benefit. It is a trap designed to close your claim for a fraction of its value.
Step 5: Do not post about your case on social media. Claims administrators and defense investigators monitor social media. A post about your health, your activities, your vacation, your work status — anything that appears to contradict your claim of injury or limitations — will be found, saved, and used against you. Set your accounts to private. Better yet, do not post about your health, your legal situation, or your activities until your case is resolved.
Step 6: Call a lawyer. Not just any lawyer — a trial lawyer who understands preemption doctrine, who knows how mass tort settlement matrices work, who can evaluate whether your case has a viable surviving theory, and who can tell you honestly whether the settlement matrix or individual litigation is the right path for your specific facts. The consultation should be free. The fee should be contingency — you pay nothing unless you recover. And the lawyer should be able to explain, in plain language, exactly where your case falls on the post-ruling landscape.
Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we win your case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still file a Roundup cancer lawsuit after the Supreme Court ruling?
Yes, you can still file — but the legal theory that produced the largest verdicts (failure to warn) has been preempted. Surviving theories including design defect, fraudulent concealment, and negligent safety testing may remain viable depending on how courts interpret the scope of the SCOTUS opinion. Additionally, Bayer’s $7.25 billion settlement fund for approximately 65,000 remaining claims is a separate pathway that does not depend on the failure-to-warn theory. If you have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and documented Roundup exposure, you should consult with a lawyer to evaluate which path — settlement enrollment or litigation on a surviving theory — is right for your case.
What did the Supreme Court actually rule in the Roundup case?
The Court held 7-2 that FIFRA — the federal pesticide labeling law — preempts state failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has approved a pesticide label without the warning the state claim would require. Because the EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, state courts cannot hold Monsanto/Bayer liable for failing to add one. The ruling reversed a $1.25 million verdict from a St. Louis, Missouri state court. It did not find that glyphosate is safe, did not eliminate all Roundup lawsuits, and did not address non-labeling theories like design defect or fraudulent concealment.
How much is my Roundup case worth after the ruling?
Case values have decreased significantly from the pre-ruling era, when verdicts ranged from $80 million to over $2 billion. The $7.25 billion settlement fund for approximately 65,000 remaining claims produces an average of roughly $111,500 per claimant, but individual values vary widely based on a settlement matrix. Low-end values ($25,000-$100,000) apply to moderate residential exposure with treatable NHL. High-end values ($300,000-$1,500,000) apply to extensive occupational exposure with aggressive NHL requiring stem cell transplant, significant economic loss, and potentially viable non-preempted theories. Your specific value depends on your exposure documentation, cancer subtype, treatment intensity, and economic losses.
How long do I have to file a Roundup lawsuit in Missouri?
Missouri provides a five-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims — one of the longer deadlines in the country. For toxic tort cases like Roundup, the clock generally starts when you knew or should have known that your non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was connected to glyphosate exposure, not when you were exposed. For wrongful death claims, Missouri provides a shorter three-year deadline from the date of death. However, statute of limitations rules are state-specific and subject to interpretation — you must confirm the current deadline with a lawyer licensed in Missouri. Do not assume you have unlimited time, and do not wait to find out.
Does the ruling mean glyphosate does not cause cancer?
No. The Supreme Court did not make a scientific finding about glyphosate. The ruling is about legal preemption — whether federal labeling law overrides state tort claims. The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer still classifies glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A). The EPA’s contrary position (not likely carcinogenic) is itself scientifically contested. The science did not change. What changed is the legal framework through which a plaintiff can bring that science into a courtroom on a failure-to-warn theory.
What is the $7.25 billion Roundup settlement and do I qualify?
Bayer has reportedly planned a $7.25 billion settlement fund for approximately 65,000 remaining Roundup lawsuits. The fund operates through a settlement matrix that scores each claim based on exposure intensity and duration, cancer subtype and severity, treatment intensity, age at diagnosis, economic losses, and prognosis. To qualify, you generally need documented Roundup exposure and a confirmed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma diagnosis. The settlement is not a flat per-person payout — it is a tiered system where more severely injured and more heavily exposed claimants receive higher values. Enrollment in the settlement program has deadlines and documentation requirements that a lawyer can help you meet.
What if I already have a pending Roundup lawsuit?
If your case is among the 65,000 pending, the SCOTUS ruling changes the legal landscape but does not automatically dismiss your case. Your failure-to-warn claim is likely preempted, but your attorney should be evaluating whether to amend your complaint to add or emphasize surviving theories — design defect, fraudulent concealment, negligent testing — and whether to enroll your case in the settlement matrix. The ruling may also affect settlement leverage: Bayer has less incentive to offer premium values because the trial threat is reduced, but the $7.25 billion fund indicates the company still recognizes residual risk. Talk to your lawyer immediately about how the ruling affects your specific case strategy.
What evidence do I need for a Roundup cancer claim?
You need three categories of evidence. Medical: pathology reports confirming your NHL subtype, all treatment records (chemotherapy, radiation, stem cell transplant), imaging, lab results, oncologist notes, and current remission/relapse status. Exposure: employment records, purchase receipts, usage logs, and co-worker statements documenting your Roundup use — frequency, duration, concentration, and protective equipment. Economic: wage records, tax returns, and employer statements documenting lost income and diminished earning capacity. The exposure evidence degrades fastest — receipts are discarded, memories fade, employers’ records cycle out of retention. Gather this evidence now.
Can I sue if a family member died from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma caused by Roundup?
Yes. A wrongful death claim may be available if your family member died from NHL potentially caused by Roundup exposure. Missouri provides a three-year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims, running from the date of death — shorter than the five-year personal injury deadline. The claim must be brought by the personal representative of the decedent’s estate or by the statutory beneficiaries (typically spouse and children, then parents, then other heirs). The SCOTUS ruling affects wrongful death claims the same way it affects personal injury claims — the failure-to-warn theory is preempted, but surviving theories may remain viable, and the settlement fund may be available.
Should I take the first settlement offer from Bayer’s claims administrators?
No. The first offer is almost always the lowest offer — it is designed to close your claim quickly and cheaply, before you have fully documented your exposure, completed your medical evaluation, or consulted with a lawyer. The settlement matrix scores claims based on documentation quality. A claim submitted with incomplete records scores lower than one with comprehensive documentation. Do not accept any offer until your medical treatment is documented, your exposure evidence is compiled, and a lawyer has evaluated whether the offer reflects the true value of your case. Accepting a settlement typically waives all future claims related to your Roundup exposure — make sure the value reflects what you are giving up.
Is the Roundup settlement fund a class action?
No. The settlement is not a class action where one representative plaintiff’s outcome binds everyone. Each claimant maintains an individual claim that is scored on the settlement matrix based on their specific facts. This means your recovery depends on your individual exposure history, cancer diagnosis, and treatment — not on what other claimants receive. It also means you need your own evidence to support your claim. You are not carried by other plaintiffs’ documentation; you must prove your own case.
Why Attorney911
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are Legal Emergency Lawyers. We take Missouri cases. And we are writing this page because 65,000 people just had the legal ground shift under their feet, and someone needs to tell them — honestly, plainly, and without sales pressure — what it means and what to do about it.
Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — he knows how to read a Supreme Court opinion and translate it into language a family at a kitchen table can understand. He is admitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He is the managing partner of this firm. He handles the cases that go to trial, and he handles them to win. Read more about Ralph.
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm before he joined this firm. He sat in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to value, delay, and devalue people exactly like the 65,000 Roundup claimants who are now being told their cases are worthless. He knows how claim valuation works from the inside — how reserves are set, how settlement matrices are designed to pay less than full value, how delay tactics are engineered to push claimants toward accepting fractions of what their cases are worth. He uses that knowledge for injured clients now. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. Read more about Lupe.
We work on contingency. That means: 33.33 percent before trial, 40 percent if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. Our emergency hotline — 1-888-ATTY-911 — is staffed 24/7 by live people, not an answering service. We have been in business since July 18, 2001 — more than 24 years. Our aggregate recoveries exceed $50 million.
We handle toxic tort claims — cases involving chemical exposure, cancer, and corporate accountability. We handle wrongful death claims for families who have lost someone to a disease that should have been prevented. And we handle the full range of personal injury and product liability cases that this ruling touches.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. The SCOTUS ruling is new, and how Missouri courts interpret its scope will develop over the coming months. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The settlement figures discussed here are framework estimates based on publicly reported information, not promises of what any individual case will produce. Contacting the firm is free and confidential.
But here is what we can promise: when you call, you will talk to a real person. You will get an honest evaluation of your situation. If your case has a viable path — through the settlement fund, through a surviving legal theory, or through litigation — we will tell you. If we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you that too. And we will not pressure you. We will arm you with information and let you decide.
The Supreme Court gave Bayer a shield. It did not give Bayer a sword. Your cancer is real. The science is not settled. The settlement fund is real. And there are lawyers who will look at your case — every document, every exposure year, every pathology report, every treatment record — and tell you exactly what it is worth in this new landscape.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Hablamos Español.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC / Attorney911 — Legal Emergency Lawyers. 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911). Contact us.