The Supreme Court Just Rewrote the Roundup Litigation — What It Means for Your Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Claim
You are reading this because you used Roundup. Maybe for years — on the farm, in the nursery, along the fence line, at the job site where spraying was just part of the day. And then the diagnosis came: non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A blood cancer you never saw coming. You heard about the lawsuits, the settlements, the billions that Bayer and Monsanto have paid out. Maybe you even signed up with a firm, or you were about to. And now the news has landed: the Supreme Court just ruled, and the headline says the Roundup litigation is finished.
It is not finished. But it has changed — dramatically, and in ways that narrow the road ahead. We are going to tell you the truth about what just happened, what this ruling kills, and what still lives. False hope is a disservice to you. But so is walking away from a claim that may still have a path. What you need are facts, and a lawyer who knows the difference between a closed door and a harder one.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle toxic tort claims and catastrophic injury cases, and we built this page because the legal landscape just shifted under tens of thousands of people, and almost nobody is explaining what it means in plain language. 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. Both of us are here to give you the honest analysis no marketing page will.
What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled — In Plain English
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — the federal law that governs how pesticides are registered, labeled, and sold in this country — preempts state court lawsuits claiming that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the Roundup label. The majority held that because the EPA approved Roundup’s label after determining that a cancer warning was not necessary, and because FIFRA prohibits states from imposing their own labeling requirements on top of what the federal government has approved, Monsanto was legally required to use the label it used. Adding the warning the plaintiffs demanded would have been illegal under federal law.
“FIFRA prohibits states from imposing any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under FIFRA.”
That is the statutory language the majority relied on. In practice, it means this: a jury in a state court cannot order Monsanto to put a cancer warning on Roundup when the EPA — the federal agency charged with evaluating pesticide safety — has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is not likely to cause cancer and that no such warning belongs on the label.
The majority ruled that “as a matter of federal law, Monsanto must use a label without a cancer warning unless and until the EPA approves or requires a change.” The Court emphasized that the EPA has evaluated glyphosate repeatedly since 1974 — including re-evaluations in 1991, again in 2017 after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen,” again in 2019, and in a 2020 interim registration review — and each time concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer. That position, the majority noted, is shared by numerous international regulatory bodies.
What This Ruling Kills — and What It Does Not
The ruling kills the failure-to-warn theory. That was the primary engine of the Roundup litigation — the claim that Monsanto knew or should have known that Roundup could cause cancer and failed to warn users by putting a cancer warning on the label. That theory, which drove the roughly $11 billion in settlements and verdicts across approximately 100,000 plaintiffs since the first major verdict in 2018, is now preempted by federal law nationwide. A state court jury can no longer hold Monsanto liable for failing to add a cancer warning that the EPA specifically determined was not warranted.
But the ruling does not kill every claim against Monsanto. The article reporting on the decision itself acknowledges: “There are still other claims against Monsanto that do not involve a warning.” The plaintiffs’ bar has conceded that this is difficult news — but it is not total extinction. What survives, and how strong those surviving theories are, is the real question. And it is a harder question than most law firm marketing pages are willing to answer honestly.
The Preempted Theory: Failure to Warn
The failure-to-warn claim is gone. If your case — or the case you were about to file — rests on the argument that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the Roundup label, that claim is now barred by federal preemption. The Supreme Court has spoken, and the ruling applies nationwide, in every state court and every federal court. This is the theory that produced the landmark 2018 California jury verdict of $289 million that launched the litigation boom, and it is the theory that has been the backbone of the approximately 65,000 remaining claims. Those claims, as failure-to-warn cases, face dismissal.
The Potentially Viable Theories: Claims That Do Not Depend on the Label
Several legal theories may survive the preemption ruling because they do not depend on what the label said or did not say. These are harder claims to win — but they are not preempted, and they are not dead.
Design defect. This theory argues that Roundup is inherently unreasonably dangerous in its formulation or design, independent of whether the label was adequate. To win, you would need to prove that the product was unreasonably dangerous under your state’s risk-utility or consumer-expectation test — without relying on labeling deficiencies. The challenge: the EPA’s repeated conclusion that glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic, now explicitly endorsed by the Supreme Court majority, creates a formidable general-causation headwind. You would need plaintiff experts — board-certified hematologist-oncologists, molecular epidemiologists, exposure-assessment specialists — who can defend specific-causation opinions against the weight of the EPA and international regulatory conclusions.
Fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation. This theory alleges that Monsanto knowingly concealed or misrepresented safety information about glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential to regulators and the public — distinct from a labeling claim and not clearly preempted by FIFRA. Prior Roundup discovery reportedly produced evidence of alleged scientific ghostwriting and consultant coordination — internal corporate communications that, if accessible, could support a theory that the company actively concealed information rather than simply failing to warn. This is a knowledge-and-conduct claim, not a label claim. It requires proving that Monsanto knew something material about glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity and deliberately hid it.
Negligent testing and research. This theory alleges that Monsanto failed to conduct adequate long-term safety studies or ignored internal evidence of carcinogenic potential during product development and post-market surveillance. It is viable if it is not predicated on labeling requirements — the claim must be about the company’s testing conduct, not about what the label said.
Breach of implied warranty of merchantability. This theory argues that Roundup was unfit for ordinary consumer use due to alleged carcinogenic properties. The preemption analysis would focus on whether the claim requires labeling modifications. If grounded in product fitness and safety rather than labeling content, it may survive — but the causation hurdle remains.
The Defendant: Monsanto Company and Bayer AG — Corporate Structure and Exposure
Monsanto Company is the operating entity that manufactured, marketed, and distributed Roundup herbicide containing glyphosate. It conducted the safety research and submitted the regulatory filings to the EPA. In 2018, Bayer AG — the German pharmaceutical and chemical giant — acquired Monsanto for approximately $63 billion and assumed all Roundup litigation exposure as part of that acquisition. Bayer has since directed the global settlement strategy that produced over $11 billion in settlements and verdicts, and it was Bayer that chose to take the preemption argument to the Supreme Court rather than continuing to fight each case on causation.
That strategic choice is worth understanding. Bayer could have continued trying to win cases on the science — arguing, case by case, that Roundup does not cause cancer, a position the EPA and most international regulators support. Instead, they chose the legal route: arguing that federal law made the state-law failure-to-warn claims illegal, not just scientifically wrong. The Supreme Court agreed. This means Bayer’s defense strategy for the remaining 65,000 claims has fundamentally shifted. For failure-to-warn claims, they will move to dismiss on preemption grounds. For surviving claims, they will lean on the EPA’s consistent scientific determinations — now endorsed by the Supreme Court itself — as a causation shield.
The Medicine: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and the Causation Fight
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a cancer of the lymphatic system — specifically of the lymphocytes, the white blood cells that are part of the immune system. It is not one disease but a category of more than 70 subtypes, each with its own biology, prognosis, and treatment path. The most common aggressive subtype is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; the most common indolent subtype is follicular lymphoma. Treatment can include chemotherapy regimens (such as R-CHOP), radiation therapy, immunotherapy (such as rituximab), targeted therapies, and — for relapsed or refractory cases — stem cell transplantation or CAR-T cell therapy.
The medical costs are substantial: induction chemotherapy, possible hospitalization for complications, ongoing monitoring for recurrence, and — if the cancer relapses — salvage chemotherapy and transplant. A stem cell transplant alone can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lost wages during treatment and recovery compound the financial burden. And the emotional toll — the fear of recurrence, the disruption of family life, the identity shift from healthy person to cancer patient — is its own category of damage that the law recognizes.
The Causation Problem — and Why It Is Now Harder
Here is the medical reality that the preemption ruling makes worse for plaintiffs. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma has many known and suspected causes: immunosuppression, certain viral infections (including Epstein-Barr virus and HTLV-1), specific chemical exposures, family history, age, and — in many cases — no identifiable cause at all. It is what doctors call a multifactorial disease. That means proving that a specific person’s NHL was caused by a specific exposure to glyphosate, rather than by any of the other known risk factors or by simple bad luck, has always been the hardest part of these cases.
Before the preemption ruling, plaintiffs could lean on the IARC classification of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” to support general causation — the proposition that glyphosate can cause NHL in humans. IARC, a World Health Organization agency, reached that conclusion using a specific methodology that focuses on hazard identification (whether a substance can cause cancer) rather than risk assessment (how much exposure it takes and at what level). The EPA and most other international regulatory bodies use risk-assessment methodology and have consistently concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer at typical exposure levels.
Now, after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the EPA’s conclusion is not just an agency position — it is a determination the Supreme Court majority explicitly endorsed and built its preemption reasoning around. The majority wrote that the EPA has “repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer” and noted that this assessment “is shared by many other regulatory bodies around the world.” For surviving claims — design defect, fraudulent concealment, negligent testing — plaintiff experts must defend specific-causation opinions against the weight of that scientific consensus. That is a steep hill. It is not impossible — the IARC classification remains, plaintiff experts remain, and the science is not monolithic — but it is the fight that now defines these cases.
The Evidence Clock: What to Preserve and How Fast It Can Disappear
If you have a potential surviving claim — or if you are evaluating whether one exists — the evidence that supports it is on a clock. Some of it is already degrading. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally vanish.
Your Medical Records — Obtain Them Now
Your complete NHL diagnosis and treatment records — pathology reports confirming the subtype, staging scans, treatment protocols, prognostic markers, and the full treatment timeline — establish the injury, its severity, and the damages baseline. These records are generally retained per HIPAA and state retention schedules, but you should obtain certified copies immediately to lock in the causation timeline. The medical record is what connects your disease to a date, and that date is what connects your disease to your exposure history.
Your Exposure Documentation — This Is the Foundation
For any surviving claim — where labeling is no longer at issue — the exposure evidence becomes the foundation of the case. You need to document: when you purchased Roundup, how often you used it, for how many years, what concentration or formulation, what application method (spray bottle, backpack sprayer, tractor-mounted rig), whether you wore protective equipment, and whether your exposure was occupational (agricultural worker, landscaper, nursery employee) or residential (home gardener, homeowner).
Retail receipts degrade. Personal usage logs get lost. Agricultural employment application records can be destroyed per company retention schedules. Occupational exposure records should be subpoenaed before personnel turnover eliminates institutional memory. If you have not already written down your complete exposure history — every job, every season, every product variant you can remember — do it now. Memory fades, and the longer you wait, the harder it becomes to reconstruct what the case needs.
Internal Monsanto/Bayer Corporate Communications
For fraudulent concealment and negligent testing theories — the claims that may survive — the discovery target shifts to Monsanto’s internal communications. Prior Roundup litigation reportedly produced evidence of alleged scientific ghostwriting, consultant coordination to influence regulatory assessments, and internal awareness of potential carcinogenicity. These documents — internal emails, research planning memos, consultant contracts, publication strategy documents — are the lifeblood of a concealment claim. They exist in Monsanto’s corporate files, but many may be under protective orders or settlement confidentiality provisions from prior cases. Accessing them requires active litigation and targeted discovery. Without a filed lawsuit and specific discovery demands, these documents remain inaccessible.
EPA Registration Files and Scientific Evaluations
The EPA’s registration files, label approval correspondence, and scientific evaluation records for glyphosate-based pesticides are public agency records. They establish the regulatory framework context and the EPA’s scientific determinations. For any surviving claim, these records are double-edged: they provide the regulatory backdrop, but they also contain the agency’s consistent conclusions that glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic — the very conclusions the Supreme Court endorsed. Specific administrative correspondence and internal evaluations may require FOIA requests with substantial processing delays. Request them early.
The Insurance and Defense Playbook: How the Other Side Uses This Ruling
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm. He sat in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows the playbook because he used to run it. Here is what the defense will do with this ruling — and how each play is countered.
Play 1: “Your claim is preempted — dismiss it”
The defense will cite the Supreme Court ruling and move to dismiss every Roundup claim as preempted. The counter: the ruling addressed failure-to-warn claims specifically. Non-warning theories — design defect, fraudulent concealment, negligent testing — are not addressed by the ruling and are not clearly preempted by FIFRA. The plaintiff’s own lawyer quoted in the ruling’s aftermath acknowledged this: there are still claims that do not involve a warning. The defense will push to dismiss everything; the response is to plead the surviving theories specifically and distinguish them from the preempted label claim.
Play 2: “The EPA says glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer — your causation expert is unreliable”
The defense will lean on the EPA’s consistent findings — now endorsed by the Supreme Court — to challenge plaintiff expert testimony under Daubert or the state equivalent. The counter: the IARC classification remains a recognized scientific position, plaintiff experts with publishable expertise in glyphosate toxicology can defend specific-causation opinions, and the Loper Bright decision — which overturned Chevron deference — means courts are no longer required to accept agency scientific conclusions as definitive. The majority chose to defer to EPA expertise, but that was a choice, not a mandate. Plaintiff counsel should be prepared to argue that courts can and should independently evaluate the scientific evidence.
Play 3: “Settle now for pennies — your case is worthless”
The defense will use the ruling to pressure fast, low settlements, telling plaintiffs that their claims are dead and they should take what is offered before the door closes entirely. The counter: cases with extraordinary documented exposure metrics, compelling internal corporate documents demonstrating knowledge of risk independent of labeling, or claims already in negotiated settlement pipelines may retain real value. A case is not worthless because one theory is preempted — but it does require a lawyer who can identify and build the surviving theories. The pressure to settle quickly is a defense tactic, not a legal reality.
Play 4: “The statute of limitations has expired”
The defense will argue that the SOL has run on your claim, especially if you delayed filing while the litigation was ongoing. The counter: in toxic tort cases, most states apply a discovery rule — the clock starts when you knew or should have known of your injury and its connection to the exposure. For NHL patients, that clock often starts at diagnosis, not at the last day you sprayed Roundup. But some states impose an outer deadline (a statute of repose) that can cut off a claim even before discovery. The SOL analysis for your claim depends on your state’s specific rules. Confirm the deadline for your jurisdiction with an attorney — this is not a question to answer with a general rule.
The Loper Bright Angle: Why the End of Chevron Deference Matters for Surviving Claims
The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned the Chevron doctrine — the principle that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Before Loper Bright, many feared that stripping agency deference would lead to courts making wacky scientific decisions on subjects they lacked expertise to evaluate. The Roundup ruling addressed that fear directly: the majority chose to defer to the EPA’s expertise and diligence, even though Chevron no longer required them to.
But here is the strategic point for surviving claims: after Loper Bright, a court is free to re-evaluate the scientific basis behind the EPA’s determinations. The majority in Monsanto v. Durnell chose not to — but that was a choice. A different court, hearing a design defect or fraudulent concealment claim, could choose to independently evaluate the science rather than simply accepting the EPA’s conclusion. This is a live litigation argument: plaintiff counsel should be prepared to argue that courts are no longer bound to accept agency scientific conclusions as definitive, and that the IARC classification, peer-reviewed epidemiological studies, and plaintiff expert testimony constitute a competing scientific record that deserves independent judicial evaluation.
What Your Case May Be Worth After the Ruling
We need to be honest about this, because false numbers hurt you more than hard truths.
For failure-to-warn claims — the theory that has been preempted — the value of new claims is effectively zero. The primary and most successful theory across the Roundup docket is foreclosed. If your case rests solely on the argument that Monsanto should have warned you about cancer on the label, that claim faces dismissal.
For surviving non-warning theories — design defect, fraudulent concealment, negligent testing, breach of warranty — the value depends on three factors: the strength of your exposure documentation, the quality of internal corporate evidence showing knowledge of risk independent of labeling, and whether your claim is already in a negotiated settlement pipeline. Cases with extraordinary documented exposure metrics, compelling internal corporate documents, or claims already in the settlement process may retain value. But these claims face steep general-causation challenges given the EPA’s repeated findings — findings the Supreme Court majority explicitly endorsed.
The historical litigation produced over $11 billion in aggregate settlements and verdicts across approximately 100,000 plaintiffs, with individual outcomes varying based on exposure severity, injury grade, and jurisdiction. That was the pre-preemption landscape. The post-preemption landscape is fundamentally different. Punitive damages, which were available in jurisdictions permitting them and served as a significant settlement-pressure driver, are now harder to pursue because the core conduct at issue — the decision not to warn — has been deemed legally required by federal law.
We evaluate claims honestly. If your case does not have a viable non-warning theory, we will tell you. If it does, we will tell you what it takes to build it and what it may be worth. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do Now
If you have non-Hodgkin lymphoma and you used Roundup — whether you already have a claim filed, you were about to file, or you are just now learning about the litigation — here is what to do.
Step 1: Obtain your complete medical records. Pathology reports, staging scans, treatment records, prognostic markers. These establish your injury and its timeline. Request certified copies from every treating facility.
Step 2: Write down your complete Roundup exposure history. Every job where you used it. Every season. Every product variant. Every application method. Every piece of protective equipment you did or did not wear. Every purchase you can remember. Do this now, while memory is fresh — even if you think it is too late, even if you think the ruling killed your case. The exposure record is the foundation for any surviving theory, and it degrades faster than any other evidence.
Step 3: Preserve every document you have. Receipts, labels, photographs of products you used, employment records from jobs where exposure occurred, any correspondence with prior counsel. Store physical documents in a dry place; store digital files in two locations.
Step 4: Do not sign anything from Monsanto, Bayer, or any claims administrator without having a lawyer review it. If you are offered a quick settlement, if you receive a release to sign, if you are told your case is part of a settlement class — get independent legal advice before signing anything. A release signed today may extinguish claims you do not yet know you have.
Step 5: Call a lawyer who handles toxic tort cases. Not just any lawyer — one who understands the difference between the preempted failure-to-warn theory and the surviving non-warning theories, one who can evaluate whether your exposure history and available evidence support a viable claim, and one who will tell you the truth about your chances.
How We Build a Surviving Claim — The Proof Story
If you call us, here is how we evaluate and build a case in this new legal landscape.
First, we screen for viable theories. We do not file a failure-to-warn claim — that would be dismissed on preemption grounds. We evaluate whether your facts support a design defect claim (was the product unreasonably dangerous in its formulation?), a fraudulent concealment claim (did the company knowingly hide safety information?), a negligent testing claim (did it fail to conduct adequate studies?), or a warranty claim. This screening is the most important step — filing the wrong theory wastes time and money.
Second, we lock down evidence. The preservation letter goes out the day you call. We demand that Monsanto and Bayer preserve all internal communications regarding glyphosate safety research, IARC classification response, scientific publication strategy, and consultant coordination. We demand your employment and exposure records from every relevant employer. We obtain your complete medical file. We move fast because the evidence clock is running.
Third, we build the causation case. This is the hardest part and the most important. We work with board-certified hematologist-oncologists who can opine on specific causation — whether your NHL was more likely than not caused by glyphosate exposure. We work with molecular epidemiologists who can address the IARC findings and distinguish them from the EPA’s risk-assessment conclusions. We work with exposure-assessment specialists who can reconstruct your cumulative dose from your usage history. And we prepare for the Daubert challenge — because the defense will attack every expert.
Fourth, we target discovery. For fraudulent concealment claims, we seek internal Monsanto documents — emails, memos, consultant contracts, publication strategy sessions — that may show the company knew more than it told regulators. Prior Roundup discovery reportedly uncovered internal documents relevant to these theories. Documents produced in prior litigation may be under protective orders; new case filing and targeted discovery demands are required to access them.
Fifth, if the case has merit, we build it for trial or settlement. A surviving claim that is well-documented, well-experted, and well-pleaded has settlement value — even in this harder landscape. A claim that is weakly supported does not. The difference is in the work, and the work starts with the first call.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still sue Monsanto if I used Roundup and got non-Hodgkin lymphoma?
The failure-to-warn theory — the claim that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the label — is now preempted by federal law and faces dismissal. However, other legal theories that do not depend on the label may survive: design defect, fraudulent concealment, negligent testing, and breach of implied warranty. Whether any of these theories are viable for your specific case depends on your exposure history, available evidence, and jurisdiction. You need a lawyer who understands the difference between the preempted and surviving claims to evaluate your case honestly.
What did the Supreme Court actually rule in the Roundup case?
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that FIFRA — the federal pesticide law — preempts state court failure-to-warn claims seeking cancer warnings on Roundup labels. The majority held that because the EPA approved Roundup’s label after determining a cancer warning was not necessary, and because federal law prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements different from what the EPA approved, Monsanto was legally required to use the label it used. Adding the warning would have violated federal law.
I already have a Roundup claim filed — what happens to my case?
If your filed claim is a failure-to-warn claim, it faces a motion to dismiss on preemption grounds. Your attorney should be evaluating whether your case can be amended to include surviving non-warning theories — design defect, fraudulent concealment, negligent testing — that are not addressed by the Supreme Court ruling. If your case is already in a negotiated settlement pipeline, it may proceed to resolution under the terms of that pipeline. Contact your current attorney immediately to ask what theories your case pleads and how the ruling affects them.
What is FIFRA preemption and why does it matter for my claim?
FIFRA — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — is the federal law that requires all pesticides sold in the United States to be registered with the EPA. As part of registration, the EPA approves the pesticide’s label, determining that it contains all warnings necessary to protect health and the environment. Once the EPA approves a label, the manufacturer is legally required to use it as-is. FIFRA’s express preemption clause prohibits states from imposing any labeling or packaging requirements in addition to or different from those required under the Act. The Supreme Court held that this means a state court cannot require Monsanto to add a cancer warning that the EPA determined was not necessary.
What legal theories still survive after the Supreme Court ruling?
Theories that do not depend on labeling may survive: design defect (the product is inherently unreasonably dangerous in its formulation), fraudulent concealment (the company knowingly hid safety information from regulators and the public), negligent testing (the company failed to conduct adequate safety studies), and breach of implied warranty of merchantability (the product was unfit for ordinary use). Each of these faces significant challenges — particularly the general-causation hurdle created by the EPA’s consistent findings that glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic, findings the Supreme Court majority explicitly endorsed. But they are not preempted, and they are not dead.
How long do I have to file a Roundup lawsuit now?
The statute of limitations varies by state — typically between two and six years for personal injury claims. In toxic tort cases, most states apply a discovery rule: the clock starts when you knew or should have known of your injury and its connection to the exposure. For NHL patients, that often means the clock starts at diagnosis. However, some states impose a statute of repose — an outer deadline that can cut off a claim even before discovery. The FIFRA preemption ruling does not change the SOL for surviving claims, but it does mean the SOL analysis now applies only to non-warning theories. Confirm the deadline for your state with an attorney — this is not a question to answer with a general rule.
I already settled my Roundup claim — does this ruling affect me?
If you have already executed a settlement agreement, that agreement is generally binding regardless of this ruling. The settlement resolved your claims in exchange for compensation, and the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling on preemption does not reopen settled cases. However, if you signed a release that was limited to failure-to-warn claims only — reserving other theories — you should have an attorney review the release language to determine whether any surviving claims remain available to you.
What evidence do I need to preserve for a surviving Roundup claim?
Your complete NHL medical records (pathology, staging, treatment), your full Roundup exposure history (purchase dates, usage frequency, duration, application methods, occupational vs. residential exposure), any employment records from jobs where exposure occurred, and any correspondence with prior counsel or claims administrators. For fraudulent concealment claims, the key evidence is internal Monsanto corporate communications — but those are accessible only through active litigation and targeted discovery. Preserve what you control now, and let your lawyer pursue what the company controls.
Is it still worth pursuing a Roundup case after this ruling?
That depends entirely on the strength of your exposure documentation and whether a viable non-warning theory exists for your facts. Cases with extraordinary documented exposure, compelling corporate documents showing knowledge of risk, or claims already in settlement pipelines may retain value. Cases resting solely on the failure-to-warn theory are effectively foreclosed. The honest answer is that this ruling made these cases harder — but harder is not the same as impossible. A lawyer who screens carefully and builds the surviving theories can tell you whether your specific case is worth pursuing.
What should I do right now if I have non-Hodgkin lymphoma and I used Roundup?
Obtain your complete medical records. Write down your entire Roundup exposure history — every job, every season, every product, every year. Preserve every document you have. Do not sign anything from Monsanto, Bayer, or any claims administrator without legal review. And call a lawyer who handles toxic tort cases and understands the post-preemption landscape. The consultation is free. The call costs you nothing. And the answer — whether your case has a path forward or does not — is something you need to make an informed decision about your future.
Who We Are — and Why That Matters for This Case
Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — he knows how to find the story the evidence tells, and he knows how to tell it to a jury. He is a competitor who hates losing, and he does not take cases he cannot fight. He leads the active $10 million hazing lawsuit against Pi Kappa Phi and the University of Houston in Harris County — a case that requires the same kind of institutional-accountability fighting that surviving Roundup claims demand.
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm. He was trained by the industry — he knows how adjusters set reserves in the first 48 hours, how claims are fed into valuation software that discounts pain it cannot see, how the quick settlement check arrives with a release printed on the back before the full medical picture is clear. He knows the playbook because he used to help run it. Now he sits on your side of the table, in English or in Spanish, using that inside knowledge to fight for injured people.
We handle wrongful death claims and toxic tort cases because the fight — holding a corporation accountable for what its product did to a human body — is the same fight whether the defendant is a pesticide manufacturer or any other company that put profit over safety. The Manginello Law Firm has recovered over $50 million for clients, including a $5 million-plus brain-injury settlement, a $3.8 million-plus amputation settlement, and a $2.5 million-plus truck-crash recovery. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes — but the depth of the fight does not change because the mechanism is new.
We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. We work on contingency — 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. We have 24/7 live staff, not an answering service. And we serve your family fully in Spanish. Hablamos Español.
The Decision in Front of You
The Supreme Court changed the Roundup litigation. The primary theory is gone. The settlements that came before were built on that theory, and they will not come again on the same terms. That is the truth, and we will not dress it up.
But the truth also includes this: non-warning legal theories exist. The IARC classification remains. The Loper Bright decision opened a door for independent scientific evaluation. Internal corporate documents from prior discovery may be accessible through new filings. And the evidence of your exposure — your work history, your usage, your medical timeline — is yours to preserve right now, before it fades.
The question is not whether the fight is harder. It is. The question is whether your specific facts support a surviving claim that a skilled lawyer can build into something real. That question can only be answered by a case-specific evaluation — and that evaluation is free.
Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. Or call (713) 528-9070. The consultation costs nothing. We will tell you honestly whether your case has a path forward in this new landscape — and if it does not, we will tell you that too. Because the one thing we will never do is sell you a case that does not exist.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup, the most important step is the one you take next. Make it count.