The Supreme Court Just Ruled on Roundup Lawsuits — Here’s What It Means for Your Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Case
You heard the news and your stomach dropped. The Supreme Court ruled against the Roundup failure-to-warn claims — the ones about cancer warnings on the label — and now you are sitting at your kitchen table at 2 a.m. wondering whether the case you were counting on just evaporated. We are going to tell you something that most of the coverage buried, missed, or got wrong: your legal options did not disappear. They changed shape. Failure-to-warn claims — the theory that the company should have put a cancer warning on the bottle — are now substantially foreclosed by federal preemption. But negligence claims and design-defect claims survived the ruling, law firms are still accepting and filing new cases, and the $7.25 billion settlement framework that Bayer is pushing may be grossly inadequate for people with serious non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses. If you used Roundup and later developed this cancer, you need to understand what actually happened, what did not happen, and what your next move is — because the window to act under the most favorable remaining legal theories may narrow as lower courts interpret how far the ruling reaches.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort and product liability cases and catastrophic injury litigation. This page is not a news summary. It is the analysis a senior trial attorney gives you across a kitchen table when you are scared and need to know what is real. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where claims like yours are priced and devalued — and now sits on your side of the table. Everything we tell you here is grounded in the law, the science, and the facts of this ruling, not in a sales pitch. If we are not the right fit for your case, we will tell you. But first, you need the truth about where things stand.
What the Ruling Preempted — and What Survived
The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision held that failure-to-warn claims in Roundup cancer lawsuits are federally preempted under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — known as FIFRA. The logic works like this: FIFRA requires the EPA to approve pesticide labels before they go to market. The EPA approved Roundup’s label without requiring a cancer warning. FIFRA also says that states cannot impose labeling requirements that are different from or additional to what the federal government requires. So when a plaintiff sues in state court arguing that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the label, the Supreme Court said that claim conflicts with the federal labeling regime — and is therefore preempted. Bayer’s own statement made the strategy plain:
The ruling “should help significantly contain litigation by preempting conflicting state-law-based warning claims.”
That is the defendant telling you exactly what it won and what it intends to do with the victory — contain the litigation. But here is what the ruling did not do. It did not eliminate every Roundup claim. It did not say Roundup is safe. It did not say Monsanto did nothing wrong. It did not close the courthouse door. Three categories of legal theory remain viable, and each attacks a different facet of the company’s conduct:
Negligence claims survive. A negligence claim does not depend on what the label said. It asks a different question: did Monsanto exercise reasonable care in researching, formulating, testing, and marketing glyphosate? What did the company know about glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential, and when did it know it? Did its testing meet the standard of care? Did it conduct its safety research honestly, or did it influence the science? These questions are independent of the label content and were not directly addressed by the preemption ruling. The fight shifts from what the label said to what the manufacturer knew and how it conducted its safety research — and that is a fight internal corporate documents can win.
Design-defect claims survive. A design-defect claim argues that Roundup is unreasonably dangerous as designed — that a safer alternative formulation existed that would have reduced the cancer risk, and that the company chose not to use it. This theory is independent of label content. It asks whether the product itself was defectively designed, not whether the label was adequate. The preemption ruling, which was about labeling requirements, does not directly reach this theory.
New lawsuits are still being filed. The article confirms that law firms are still accepting and filing new cases from people who may have been impacted. The courthouse door is open. What has changed is the legal theory you walk through it with — and that shift requires a lawyer who understands the difference between a preempted failure-to-warn claim and a viable negligence or design-defect claim.
The distinction matters because the defense will try to convince you that the Supreme Court killed all Roundup litigation. It did not. It killed one theory. The other theories were always there, and they may be stronger than you think — because they target what the company knew and did, not what it wrote on a bottle.
Can You Still File a Roundup Lawsuit?
Yes. Law firms are still accepting and filing new Roundup lawsuits. The Supreme Court ruling narrowed the legal theories available, but it did not close the door to new filings. If you were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup, you may still have a viable claim under negligence or design-defect theories. The key question is no longer whether the label should have carried a cancer warning — that claim is substantially foreclosed. The key question now is whether Monsanto knew or should have known about the cancer risk, whether it conducted its safety research with reasonable care, and whether the product could have been formulated more safely.
The federal multidistrict litigation — MDL No. 2741, In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, pending in the Northern District of California before Judge Vince Chhabria — still had approximately 3,909 actions pending as of mid-2026, with approximately 5,295 total actions filed. Thousands of additional cases sit in state court dockets, with significant concentrations in California and Missouri, where many of the prior Roundup trials took place. The ruling applies uniformly nationwide, but its downstream impact on pending state-court cases, remand posture, and settlement administration will vary by jurisdiction.
What this means for you: if you have not yet filed, the door is open. If you have a pending case, your attorney should be evaluating whether to amend the complaint to emphasize the surviving theories. And if you have been offered a settlement under the $7.25 billion framework, you should understand what that framework actually pays before you accept — because some qualifying claimants could walk away with as little as $6,000, which may be a fraction of what your case is worth on the litigation track.
The $7.25 Billion Settlement: Terms, Criticism, and the $6,000 Question
Bayer is advancing a $7.25 billion settlement framework designed to cover both current and future Roundup claims. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, the company is still moving forward with that settlement. But the deal has drawn significant pushback from law firms and advocates who are concerned that it does not provide enough compensation for people impacted by non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Here is what we know from the reporting: under the terms of the deal, some people who qualify could receive as little as $6,000. That figure is not a typo. Six thousand dollars — for a person who used a product for years, developed a blood cancer, went through chemotherapy or radiation or immunotherapy or a stem-cell transplant, lost wages, lost their quality of life, and faces an uncertain future. For a person with high medical expenses, an aggressive NHL subtype, or a prolonged treatment regimen, $6,000 is not compensation. It is a coupon.
The settlement framework has drawn criticism precisely because its minimum payouts may be grossly inadequate for claimants with serious diagnoses. The concern is that the Supreme Court ruling will be used as a pressure tool — to convince people that their cases are weak, that the failure-to-warn theory was the only theory, and that taking a small settlement is better than fighting for what the case is actually worth. That pressure campaign is already underway, and it is built on a false premise: that the ruling eliminated all viable claims. It did not.
A separate battle is currently being fought over whether the settlement’s fate will be decided in state or federal court. That jurisdictional question matters because the forum determines which procedural rules govern claim evaluation, distribution, and any future opt-out litigation. If the settlement is overseen in federal court, it may face different procedural hurdles than if it is administered in state court. The outcome of that fight could affect how quickly claims are processed, how transparent the evaluation process is, and what rights claimants retain to pursue individual litigation outside the framework.
The bottom line on the settlement: it exists, it is moving forward, and it may offer some compensation to some claimants. But $6,000 is a floor, not a ceiling, and it is a floor that may be far below what your case is worth if you have strong exposure evidence, a confirmed NHL diagnosis, and compelling corporate-document support for negligence or design-defect theories. Before you accept any settlement offer, you need an individualized evaluation of what your case is worth on the litigation track — not the settlement track.
What Your Roundup Case Is Worth Now
Case valuation after the Supreme Court ruling requires a bifurcated analysis. There are two tracks: the settlement-eligible track and the litigation track. They produce very different numbers.
The settlement track. If your claim enters the $7.25 billion framework, your compensation is determined by the framework’s compensation tiers. At the low end, some qualifying claimants could receive as little as $6,000. Higher-tier payouts within the framework depend on factors like exposure duration, NHL subtype, treatment history, and age at diagnosis. The framework is designed to resolve claims efficiently — which means it is also designed to pay less than full tort value. For a claimant with weak exposure evidence or a less aggressive NHL subtype, the settlement framework may be the more favorable option. For a claimant with strong exposure evidence and a severe diagnosis, the framework’s payout may be a fraction of the case’s true value.
The litigation track. If your claim stays in active litigation under non-preempted negligence or design-defect theories, the damages exposure is full. Plaintiffs diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after Roundup exposure pursue economic damages including past and future medical costs — chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, stem-cell transplantation — lost wages, and diminished earning capacity. They also pursue non-economic damages for pain and suffering, loss of quality of life, and emotional distress. In wrongful-death survival actions, the estate and beneficiaries pursue associated damages. Punitive damages remain theoretically available under the surviving theories where a plaintiff can demonstrate that the manufacturer knew of the cancer risk and disregarded it — though the preemption ruling weakens the overall litigation leverage that drove prior large verdicts.
The case value range under the current landscape runs from approximately $6,000 at the settlement minimum to $500,000 or more for individual litigation-track cases with strong exposure evidence, confirmed NHL diagnosis, and compelling corporate-document support. Prior nine-figure verdicts — the headline numbers that drove thousands of people to file — were driven primarily by failure-to-warn theories that are now preempted and are unlikely to recur at those levels. But that does not mean litigation-track cases are worthless. It means the ceiling is lower and the path to the ceiling requires a different legal theory and a different kind of proof.
Individual case value depends on four variables: exposure duration and intensity (how long and how much Roundup you used), NHL subtype and treatment costs (some forms are far more aggressive and expensive to treat than others), your age and earning capacity (younger plaintiffs with higher earning capacity carry larger lost-earnings claims), and whether your claim enters the settlement framework or remains in active litigation. A person who sprayed Roundup on a suburban lawn every weekend for fifteen years, was diagnosed with a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma at age 50, and underwent six cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy plus radiation has a very different case from a person who used Roundup occasionally for two years and was diagnosed with an indolent follicular lymphoma at age 75. Both cases may have value — but the value is different, and the path to maximizing it is different.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can tell you is that the settlement framework’s minimum payout is not a measure of what your case is worth. It is a measure of what Bayer is willing to pay to make cases go away efficiently. Whether that number is fair for you depends on facts that no framework can evaluate without looking at your individual history.
Bayer and Monsanto: The Corporate Structure and the Strategy
To understand what happens next, you need to understand who you are actually fighting and how they built their defense. The corporate structure matters because it determines who holds the money, who made the decisions, and who answers for what the company knew.
Bayer AG is the German pharmaceutical and agricultural giant that acquired Monsanto in 2018 and assumed Roundup liability. Bayer is the architect of the federal preemption defense that just succeeded at the Supreme Court, and it is the architect of the $7.25 billion settlement framework. Bayer’s strategy has been two-pronged: use the Supreme Court to cut off the failure-to-warn theory that drove the largest verdicts, and use the settlement framework to resolve the remaining claims at a fraction of their potential tort value. The company’s own statement — that the ruling should “significantly contain litigation” — tells you exactly what this strategy is designed to do: contain the cost, not compensate the harm.
Monsanto Company is the original manufacturer that developed, formulated, and commercialized glyphosate-based Roundup. Monsanto designed and submitted the product label that the EPA approved without a cancer warning. Monsanto’s research, testing, and marketing conduct is the subject of the surviving negligence and design-defect claims. When the fight shifts from what the label said to what the company knew about cancer risk and how it conducted its safety research, the discovery target is Monsanto’s internal files — the emails, the memos, the research protocols, the decisions about what to study and what not to study, and the communications about how to influence the scientific and regulatory record.
The acquisition created a structural wrinkle that matters for your case. Bayer acquired Monsanto’s liability along with its business, but the conduct at issue — the research, the testing, the label decisions, the marketing — was Monsanto’s. Internal Monsanto documents produced in prior litigation phases have already revealed significant information about the company’s approach to glyphosate safety research, including allegations of ghostwriting scientific papers and influencing the regulatory process. Those documents are the backbone of the surviving negligence claims, and newly identified custodians and internal communications may still exist. The preservation demand should issue promptly to prevent spoliation — because the records that prove what Monsanto knew are the records that win the surviving claims.
The coverage-tower reality for a defendant of this scale is different from a typical personal injury case. Bayer is a balance-sheet defendant — a global pharmaceutical and chemical conglomerate with the resources to fight every case and the incentive to settle them efficiently. The settlement framework is designed to cap Bayer’s exposure. The litigation track is the path to full damages. Knowing which path serves your interests requires an individualized evaluation — not a one-size-fits-all settlement offer.
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: The Disease and the Science
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a cancer of the lymphatic system — the network of vessels, nodes, and organs that carries infection-fighting white blood cells through your body. NHL is not one disease. It is a category of more than seventy subtypes, each with a different biology, a different prognosis, and a different treatment path. Some subtypes are indolent — slow-growing, treatable but rarely curable, managed over years or decades. Others are aggressive — fast-growing, requiring immediate treatment, sometimes curable but sometimes fatal. The subtype you have determines everything about your treatment, your costs, and your future.
Treatment for NHL can include chemotherapy (the R-CHOP regimen is common for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma), radiation therapy, immunotherapy (monoclonal antibodies like rituximab), and in some cases stem-cell transplantation — a grueling process that involves high-dose chemotherapy to destroy the bone marrow, followed by infusion of stem cells to rebuild it. Each of these treatments carries its own risks, its own side effects, and its own costs. A stem-cell transplant can require weeks in the hospital, months of recovery, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. The financial burden of NHL treatment can be catastrophic even for insured patients, and the emotional burden — the fear, the fatigue, the uncertainty — does not show up on any invoice.
The scientific question at the heart of every Roundup case is whether glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. That question is not simple, and the answer depends on who you ask. The Environmental Protection Agency has classified glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” — a classification that underpins its label-approval decision and now anchors the preemption defense. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer — IARC, the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization — classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, placing it in IARC Group 2A, the same category that includes red meat and high-temperature frying.
This regulatory-scientific conflict is not a footnote. It is the central evidentiary battleground for the surviving claims. When the legal question was “should the label have carried a cancer warning,” the EPA’s classification was the shield — the company could say the federal regulator approved the label without a warning, so state law cannot require one. But now that the legal question shifts to “what did Monsanto know about the cancer risk, and did it conduct its safety research with reasonable care,” the EPA classification becomes only one piece of the puzzle. The IARC classification becomes another. And the internal corporate documents — the research Monsanto conducted, the data it generated, the conclusions it drew, and the decisions it made about what to share with regulators and the public — become the proof that can bridge the gap between “probably carcinogenic” and “what the company knew and when.”
For the reader sitting at that kitchen table: the science is not settled, and that is actually not bad news for your case. A settled scientific question would leave no room for argument. A contested one — where the world’s leading cancer authority disagrees with the federal regulator — creates the space to ask what the company knew, what its own research showed, and whether it acted with reasonable care. That is the negligence claim. And it survived.
The Evidence Clock: What Proof Exists and How Fast It Dies
Every toxic exposure case is a race against evidence decay. The proof that links your Roundup use to your cancer diagnosis exists right now, in documents and records and memories — but it will not exist forever. Some of it is already disappearing. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally die.
Roundup purchase and usage records. Receipts, product containers, landscaping or agricultural application logs — these establish the duration, frequency, and intensity of your glyphosate exposure. For residential users, this means old receipts, garden-center records, and the physical product containers you may still have in a garage or shed. For agricultural and commercial workers, this means employment records, application logs, and purchasing records from suppliers. Residential containers and receipts degrade or are discarded over time. Agricultural application records may be subject to retention schedules and record-destruction policies. The longer you wait, the harder it becomes to document the exposure that is the foundation of your case. Write down everything you remember now — every brand, every year, every season, every area you sprayed — while the memory is fresh.
Medical records documenting your NHL diagnosis. Pathology reports, treatment history, oncologist summaries, imaging, lab results — these confirm the injury type, the subtype, the staging, and the temporal relationship to your exposure. Medical records are generally preserved in hospital and clinic systems, but they should be collected promptly to prevent fragmentation across providers or loss of older records. Your pathology report is the single most important document — it names the exact NHL subtype, which drives both the medical prognosis and the case valuation. If you have not requested your complete medical file, do it now.
Occupational and residential exposure history. Job descriptions, work-site addresses, co-worker statements, municipal use records — these corroborate the exposure pathway and help differentiate Roundup exposure from other NHL risk factors. Co-worker memories fade. Witnesses relocate and become unavailable. Employment records are subject to retention limits. If you worked in agriculture, landscaping, groundskeeping, or any job where Roundup was used, your co-workers’ recollections of what was sprayed, how often, and under what conditions are evidence — and that evidence has a shelf life.
Internal Monsanto and Bayer corporate documents. Internal communications regarding glyphosate safety research, the IARC classification response, label decision-making, and any post-acquisition strategic decisions by Bayer regarding litigation and settlement — these support the surviving negligence and design-defect theories by revealing what the manufacturer knew about cancer risk, when it knew it, and whether its research conduct met the standard of care. Substantial document production occurred in prior litigation phases, but newly identified custodians and internal communications may still exist. Preservation demands should issue promptly to prevent spoliation — the legal destruction of evidence that a party was obligated to preserve.
The fastest-dying evidence in a Roundup case is your own exposure history. The receipts fade. The containers get thrown out. The co-workers move away. The memories blur. The corporate documents may survive in discovery, but your personal proof of exposure will not wait for you to decide whether to act. That is why the preservation conversation starts the day you call — not the day you file.
The Claims Playbook: What Bayer’s Side Will Try Next
The Supreme Court ruling is a weapon, and Bayer’s claims machinery is already wielding it. Here are the plays we expect — and the counter to each one.
Play 1: “The Supreme Court killed your case.” This is the broadest and most dishonest play. The ruling preempted failure-to-warn claims. It did not eliminate negligence claims, design-defect claims, or the right to file new lawsuits. The counter is simple: the ruling narrowed one theory. The others survived. If someone tells you your case is dead, ask them to explain the difference between a failure-to-warn claim and a negligence claim. If they cannot, they are not the person to evaluate your case.
Play 2: “Take the $6,000 — it’s better than nothing.” This play uses the ruling to create panic and push people into cheap settlements before they understand what their case is worth on the litigation track. The counter is individualized case valuation. A person with fifteen years of heavy Roundup exposure, a confirmed diagnosis of an aggressive NHL subtype, and significant treatment costs may have a case worth far more than $6,000 on the negligence and design-defect theories that survived. The settlement framework’s minimum is a floor, not a measure of your case’s value. Consult an attorney who understands insurance claim valuation before signing anything.
Play 3: “You can’t file anymore.” This play is flatly false. Law firms are still accepting and filing new Roundup cases. The courthouse door is open. What has changed is the legal theory, not the right to sue. The counter is to file under the surviving theories — negligence and design-defect — with a complaint that pleads what Monsanto knew and how it conducted its safety research, not what the label said.
Play 4: Delay. This play relies on confusion. The ruling creates legal uncertainty, and uncertainty breeds delay. The hope is that you will wait — wait to see how the law shakes out, wait to see what the settlement pays, wait until the statute of limitations runs out. The counter is urgency. Your deadline is real. Your evidence is decaying. The day you call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — he knows how delay is engineered, because he was in the rooms where it was planned. He also knows how to break it.
Play 5: The preemption overreach. This play takes the ruling further than the Supreme Court intended. The defense will argue that the preemption logic extends beyond labeling to any claim that questions the safety of an EPA-approved product. The counter is that the ruling was about labeling requirements under FIFRA — not about negligence in research conduct, not about design-defect in product formulation, and not about what the company knew and when. Lower courts will interpret the ruling’s reach, and some defendants will push for the broadest possible reading. A lawyer who understands the difference between a preempted labeling claim and a non-preempted negligence claim is the lawyer who can hold that line.
For more on how insurers and claims administrators operate — and what not to say to them — this video from Ralph Manginello breaks down the adjuster playbook in plain language.
How a Surviving Case Is Actually Built
Here is how a Roundup case is built under the surviving legal theories — not in the abstract, but step by step, the way a trial team actually does it.
Week one: the preservation letter goes out. The day you call, a written demand goes to every entity that holds evidence — the product manufacturer, the employer or property owner where you were exposed, the medical providers who diagnosed and treated you. That letter orders them to freeze every record, every document, every communication. It is the single most important early step because it converts routine evidence destruction into sanctionable spoliation. If records disappear after that letter is on file, the law answers with an adverse-inference instruction — the jury may assume the lost evidence was as bad as the plaintiff says.
Weeks two through four: exposure documentation. We build your exposure history from every available source — purchase records, employment files, application logs, tax records showing agricultural or landscaping income, co-worker statements, product containers, photographs. For residential users, this means reconstructing years of yard-care habits from memory, receipts, and garden-center records. For commercial and agricultural users, this means pulling employment records, pesticide-application logs, and co-worker testimony. The goal is to establish not just that you used Roundup, but how much, how often, and for how long — because dose and duration are the variables that drive specific causation.
Weeks four through eight: medical record collection and expert review. We pull your complete medical file — pathology reports, treatment records, imaging, lab results, oncologist notes. The pathology report is the cornerstone: it names the exact NHL subtype, the stage, and the markers that determine prognosis and treatment. We retain a toxicologist and an epidemiologist to establish specific causation — to link your individual exposure history to your individual diagnosis. The defense will exploit the EPA/IARC scientific disagreement and argue regulatory compliance as evidence of reasonable conduct. Our experts answer with the dose-response literature, the IARC classification, and the internal corporate documents that show what Monsanto’s own research revealed.
Months two through six: discovery and depositions. If the case is in active litigation, discovery targets the internal corporate communications — the emails, the memos, the research protocols, the decisions about what to study and what not to study, the communications about influencing the scientific and regulatory record. Depositions of corporate witnesses examine the company’s choices under oath. The question is no longer what the label said. The question is what the company knew about cancer risk, when it knew it, and whether it acted with reasonable care.
The number at the end. The damages model is built from all of it — the exposure history, the medical records, the treatment costs, the lost wages, the diminished earning capacity, the pain and suffering, and where the facts support it, the punitive damages that flow from demonstrating that the manufacturer knew of the cancer risk and disregarded it. A life-care planner builds the future-cost stream. A forensic economist reduces it to present value. The adjuster’s first offer is a fraction of it — which is why the first offer is rarely the last.
For a deeper look at how case value is actually calculated, Ralph Manginello walks through the math in this video.
What to Do Right Now: Your First Steps
If you used Roundup and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, here is what you should do — and what you should not do — in the days and weeks after the Supreme Court ruling.
Do not sign anything from a settlement administrator without an independent evaluation. If you receive a settlement offer under the $7.25 billion framework, do not accept it before a lawyer who understands the surviving claims has reviewed your individual case. The framework’s minimum payout of $6,000 may be a fraction of what your case is worth on the litigation track. Signing a release may extinguish your right to pursue full compensation.
Do not accept the narrative that your case is over. The ruling preempted failure-to-warn claims. It did not eliminate negligence claims, design-defect claims, or your right to file. Anyone who tells you the Supreme Court killed all Roundup litigation is either misinformed or trying to get you to accept a cheap settlement.
Write down your exposure history now. Every brand of Roundup you used, every year, every season, every area you sprayed, every job where it was used around you. Include approximate quantities, frequency, and duration. This memory will fade — capture it while it is fresh.
Collect your medical records. Request your complete medical file from every provider who diagnosed or treated your NHL — pathology reports, treatment records, imaging, lab results, oncologist summaries. The pathology report naming your exact NHL subtype is the single most important document.
Do not give a recorded statement to any claims administrator or insurance representative. Anything you say can and will be used to devalue your claim. Contact a lawyer first — the consultation is free, and the conversation is confidential.
Confirm your deadline. The statute of limitations varies by state, and the discovery rule may apply. Do not assume you have plenty of time. Do not assume it is too late. Find out what your specific deadline is, in your specific state, for your specific facts.
Your Deadline: The Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rule
Every state has a statute of limitations — a hard deadline after which you cannot file a lawsuit, no matter how strong your case is. For personal injury claims, that deadline is typically two to three years, but it varies by state. In Texas, where our firm is based, the personal injury statute of limitations is two years under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Your state’s deadline may be different — and the deadline that applies to you depends on where you live, where you were exposed, and where your case would be filed.
For toxic exposure cases like Roundup, a critical principle often extends the clock: the discovery rule. Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations does not start running on the day you were exposed to a chemical. It starts running when you discovered — or by reasonable diligence should have discovered — both your injury and its connection to the exposure. For many Roundup plaintiffs, that means the clock may have started when they were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or when they first learned that Roundup use could be connected to their cancer — not when they sprayed the product years or decades earlier.
This matters because the latency period between glyphosate exposure and a non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis can be years or even decades. If the clock started at exposure, many claims would be time-barred before the disease ever appeared. The discovery rule exists precisely because toxic exposure diseases hide — and the law accounts for that hiding.
But there are limits. Some states impose an outer deadline — a statute of repose — that can cut off a claim even before discovery. The discovery rule does not defeat a repose statute. And the Supreme Court’s ruling may affect accrual analysis for some claims: if a court finds that the ruling itself put plaintiffs on notice that their failure-to-warn claims were in jeopardy, the clock on those claims may have started earlier than expected — though the surviving negligence and design-defect theories have their own accrual analysis. These are questions that require jurisdiction-specific legal advice.
The safe approach is simple: do not calculate your own deadline. Do not assume you have time. Do not assume it is too late. Contact a lawyer who can confirm the controlling deadline for your state and your facts — and do it now, while the evidence is still alive and the clock is still running.
If your loved one died from non-Hodgkin lymphoma after Roundup exposure, a wrongful death claim may be available — but wrongful-death statutes carry their own deadlines, often shorter than personal-injury limits, and the personal representative of the estate may need to be appointed before the claim can be filed. Time is not on your side.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is my Roundup lawsuit over because of the Supreme Court ruling?
No. The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision preempted failure-to-warn claims — the theory that Monsanto should have placed a cancer warning on the product label. But negligence claims and design-defect claims survived the ruling, and law firms are still accepting and filing new cases. Your case is not over. It may need to be evaluated under a different legal theory than the one that was originally filed, but the courthouse door is open.
Can I still file a new Roundup lawsuit?
Yes. Law firms are still accepting and filing new Roundup lawsuits from people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using the product. The legal theories available have shifted — negligence and design-defect claims are the primary path, not failure-to-warn — but new filings are proceeding. The statute of limitations in your state governs your deadline, and the discovery rule may apply, so the clock may have started at diagnosis rather than at exposure. Do not assume it is too late without confirming your specific deadline.
Should I take the $6,000 settlement offer?
That depends entirely on your individual case. For some claimants with weaker exposure evidence or less severe diagnoses, the settlement framework may be the more favorable option. For claimants with strong exposure histories, confirmed aggressive NHL subtypes, and significant treatment costs, $6,000 may be a fraction of what the case is worth on the litigation track under surviving negligence and design-defect theories. Before accepting any settlement offer, get an individualized case evaluation from a lawyer who understands the difference between the settlement track and the litigation track. Once you sign a release, you cannot go back.
What is the difference between a failure-to-warn claim and a negligence claim?
A failure-to-warn claim argues that the product label should have carried a cancer warning and that the absence of that warning caused your injury. The Supreme Court held that this claim is federally preempted under FIFRA because the EPA approved the label without requiring a cancer warning. A negligence claim asks a different question: did Monsanto exercise reasonable care in researching, formulating, testing, and marketing glyphosate? What did the company know about the cancer risk, and when did it know it? Did its safety research meet the standard of care? The negligence claim does not depend on what the label said — it depends on what the company did and knew — and it was not directly addressed by the preemption ruling.
What is a design-defect claim and does it still work?
A design-defect claim argues that Roundup is unreasonably dangerous as designed — that a safer alternative formulation existed that would have reduced the cancer risk, and that the company chose not to use it. This theory is independent of label content. It asks whether the product itself was defectively designed, not whether the label was adequate. The preemption ruling, which was about labeling requirements under FIFRA, does not directly reach design-defect theories. Whether a design-defect claim succeeds depends on state product-liability law, the availability of expert testimony on alternative formulations, and the specific facts of your case.
How long do I have to file a Roundup lawsuit?
The statute of limitations varies by state — typically two to three years for personal injury claims. However, the discovery rule often applies in toxic exposure cases, meaning the clock may start when you discovered (or should have discovered) both your injury and its connection to Roundup exposure — not when you were exposed. Some states also have statutes of repose that impose outer deadlines regardless of discovery. You need to confirm the specific deadline for your state and your facts with a lawyer. Do not calculate your own deadline, and do not wait.
What if I already have a pending Roundup case?
If you have a pending case, your attorney should be evaluating whether to amend the complaint to emphasize the surviving negligence and design-defect theories. The Supreme Court ruling does not automatically dismiss your case — it affects one theory within your case. Talk to your lawyer about how the ruling impacts your specific claims and what strategic adjustments are needed. If your attorney is not familiar with the distinction between preempted and non-preempted theories, consider getting a second opinion.
What evidence do I need for a Roundup case?
The core evidence is your exposure history (purchase records, usage logs, employment records, co-worker statements), your medical records (pathology reports, treatment history, oncologist summaries), and internal corporate documents from Monsanto and Bayer (research protocols, internal communications, label decision-making records). The exposure evidence is the most perishable — receipts fade, containers get discarded, co-workers move away, memories blur. Write down everything you remember about your Roundup use now, while the memory is fresh, and request your complete medical file from every provider.
How much is my Roundup case worth?
Case value depends on four variables: your exposure duration and intensity, your NHL subtype and treatment costs, your age and earning capacity, and whether your claim enters the settlement framework or remains in active litigation. The settlement framework’s minimum payout is approximately $6,000. Litigation-track cases with strong exposure evidence, confirmed NHL diagnosis, and compelling corporate-document support may be worth $500,000 or more. Prior nine-figure verdicts were driven primarily by failure-to-warn theories that are now preempted and are unlikely to recur at those levels. Individual case value requires individualized evaluation — no framework can tell you what your case is worth without looking at your specific facts. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Is Roundup still on the market?
Yes. Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides remain widely available and are the most broadly applied herbicides in the United States. The EPA’s current position is that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” while the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as “probably carcinogenic.” This regulatory-scientific conflict is central to the surviving claims — because the question is no longer what the label says but what the manufacturer knew and how it conducted its safety research.
Why People Call Attorney911
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are Legal Emergency Lawyers. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court, fighting for people hurt by companies that put profit over safety. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — he knows how to find the story the documents tell, and he knows how to tell it to a jury. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like you. He knows how the other side prices a claim, how it builds a delay, and where the seams in their defense are — because he used to build them. Now he breaks them. He conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The conversation is confidential. You will hear the truth about what your case is worth under the new legal landscape — not a sales pitch, not a settlement pressure tactic, and not the false narrative that the Supreme Court killed every Roundup claim. We handle toxic tort cases and catastrophic injury litigation. If your case is one we can help with, we will tell you. If it is not, we will tell you that too — and we will point you to someone who can.
The legal landscape is shifting fast. The Supreme Court ruling is days old, and lower courts have not yet interpreted its full reach. The $7.25 billion settlement is being contested. The window for filing under the most favorable remaining theories may narrow as courts define the boundary between preempted and non-preempted claims. The evidence that proves your exposure is decaying — receipts fading, containers discarded, memories blurring, co-workers moving away. Every day you wait is a day the proof gets weaker and the legal landscape gets less certain.
Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, you will reach live staff — not an answering service. Hablamos Español. The call is free. The consultation is free. You will not owe us anything unless we win your case. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can guarantee is this: when you hang up the phone, you will know where you stand, what your options are, and what your next move should be. That is the least you deserve — and it is the first thing we give every person who calls.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. The specific statute of limitations, comparative-fault rules, and damage frameworks that apply to your claim depend on your state and your individual facts. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. You can also reach us through our contact page or call 1-888-ATTY-911 any time, day or night.