The Supreme Court Ruled Against Roundup Plaintiffs — But Your Case May Not Be Over
You heard the news. The Supreme Court sided with Monsanto and Bayer in a 7-2 decision that blocks certain state-level cancer lawsuits over Roundup. If you used that weedkiller for years and then heard the words “non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma” from an oncologist, you may feel like the last door just closed.
It did not.
What the Court closed was one specific door — the failure-to-warn claim, the theory that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the bottle and did not. The Court held that when the EPA approves a pesticide label without a cancer warning, federal law can override state lawsuits that try to impose a different warning requirement. That is a real barrier. It is not the end of accountability.
There are other doors. Design defect — the claim that Roundup is unreasonably dangerous by its very formulation. Fraud — built on the internal Monsanto documents showing ghostwritten scientific studies, coordinated attacks on scientists who raised cancer concerns, and decades of concealment. Negligence in testing and research — the claim that Monsanto manipulated the scientific record rather than honestly studying whether its product causes cancer. These theories attack the product and the company’s conduct, not the label. Preemption of warning claims does not automatically reach them.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle toxic tort and chemical exposure cases and the catastrophic injuries they cause. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm, in the rooms where claims like yours are valued and denied — and now uses that knowledge for injured clients. We are writing this because the ruling just changed the landscape for more than 170,000 people who allege glyphosate caused their cancer, and the first thing Bayer will do with that ruling is try to convince you that your case is worth nothing.
It is worth something. Whether it is worth a lot or a little depends on facts we need to see — your exposure history, your medical records, and which legal theory your case can ride. What we will not do is let you be pushed into a settlement that pays Bayer’s lawyers more than it pays you.
What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled — in Plain Language
The case turned on a federal statute most people have never heard of: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticate Act, known as FIFRA. FIFRA governs how pesticides are registered, labeled, and sold in the United States. Under FIFRA, the EPA reviews and approves the labels that go on pesticide products — including Roundup.
Monsanto’s argument to the Supreme Court was straightforward: the EPA approved Roundup’s label without requiring a cancer warning. FIFRA is federal law. When federal law approves a label, state courts should not be allowed to impose a different warning requirement through tort lawsuits. Therefore, Monsanto argued, failure-to-warn claims under state law are preempted — overridden — by the federal labeling regime.
The Supreme Court agreed, 7-2.
The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes a conflict-preemption framework where EPA label approval without a cancer warning shields manufacturers from state failure-to-warn claims, holding that this federal approval can preempt state tort law claims alleging inadequate warnings.
Here is what that means in human terms. The primary theory that produced prior verdicts against Monsanto — including a 2023 Missouri jury verdict of $1.25 million for a St. Louis man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after decades of Roundup use — was that the company failed to warn consumers about cancer risk on the product label. That theory is now significantly compromised, potentially barred, in cases where the EPA approved the label without a cancer warning.
But here is what the ruling does NOT do. It does not hold that Roundup is safe. It does not hold that glyphosate does not cause cancer. It does not hold that Monsanto cannot be sued at all. It does not immunize the company for fraud, for design defect, for negligent testing, or for the deliberate scientific manipulation documented in the internal corporate records that have come to be known as the Monsanto Papers.
The distinction matters more than any other fact in your case right now.
Which Claims Survive Preemption — and Which Do Not
The Supreme Court’s ruling is the dominant strategic variable in every Roundup case in the country. Every pending case, every potential new filing, and every settlement evaluation must now be re-examined through the preemption lens. Here is the map of what survives and what does not.
Failure to warn — preempted, likely barred. The traditional theory — Monsanto knew about cancer risk and failed to put a warning on the label — is the theory the Supreme Court just gutted. Where the EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, this claim is likely preempted. The defense will file motions to dismiss on this theory early and aggressively.
Design defect — may survive. A design defect claim attacks the product’s formulation, not its label. The argument is that Roundup is unreasonably dangerous because glyphosate itself is carcinogenic and there is no way to make it safe. This theory does not depend on what the label said — it depends on what the product is. The defense will argue that EPA registration of the product itself reflects federal approval of its design, so this theory may also face preemption challenges. But the argument is different, the legal analysis is different, and the outcome is not foreclosed.
Fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation — may survive. This is where the Monsanto Papers become central. Fraud claims target intentional deception — ghostwritten scientific studies, coordinated suppression of dissenting science, public claims that Roundup was “safe enough to drink” — rather than labeling adequacy. A fraud claim says the company lied, not that the label was incomplete. Preemption of warning claims does not automatically reach fraud claims because fraud attacks conduct that is independent of the label. The 2025 retraction of a key safety paper that Monsanto helped author strengthens this theory further.
Negligence in testing and research — may survive. Monsanto’s alleged failure to conduct adequate, independent safety testing, and its active manipulation of the scientific record, is negligence in how the company conducted its research — not in what it printed on a bottle. This theory is independent of label content and may present a preemption-resistant path.
Breach of implied warranty of merchantability — may survive, depending on jurisdiction. Products containing a probable human carcinogen — as the World Health Organization’s cancer agency classified glyphosate in 2015 — may be unmerchantable as a matter of law. Warranty claims grounded in product fitness rather than labeling may present a preemption-resistant theory.
Punitive damages — survive on any surviving liability theory. The Monsanto Papers, the ghostwriting program, the scientific suppression, the retracted studies, and the internal EPA disagreement known to Monsanto since at least 1985 provide the foundation for punitive damages. Missouri law permits punitive damages where a defendant’s conduct demonstrates a conscious and deliberate disregard for the safety of others. If any liability theory survives preemption, the punitive damages evidence rides with it.
The generalist’s mistake is to read the Supreme Court ruling as the death of all Roundup litigation. It is not. It is the death of one theory and the forced migration of the fight to different theories. The firms that understand this distinction will build cases that survive. The firms that do not will file complaints that get dismissed.
The Monsanto Papers — the Fraud Evidence Preemption Cannot Reach
In 2017, during a bellwether trial in the Roundup litigation, internal Monsanto documents were uncovered that have since become known as the Monsanto Papers. These documents revealed a pattern of corporate conduct that goes far beyond a missing warning label. They showed what the company did to the science itself.
The documents revealed that Monsanto scientists authored studies that exonerated glyphosate — studies that were then published under the names of independent academics who had not actually written them. This is ghostwriting. It means the scientific literature that regulators relied upon to assess glyphosate’s safety was, in part, manufactured by the company whose product was being assessed.
The documents showed a program specifically designed to attack any scientist or reporter who spoke critically of glyphosate — not to address the science, but to discredit the people raising concerns. A renowned entomologist who raised concerns about pesticide impacts on pollinators testified that his government agency hindered his work and that he and his family faced personal and professional retaliation. A subsequent survey found that 200 other scientists reported similar interference with their work.
The documents showed that Monsanto’s knowledge of cancer concerns dates back to at least 1985, when the EPA’s own toxicology branch first classified glyphosate as a possible carcinogen, citing kidney tumors in mice from Monsanto’s own study. Monsanto pushed back. By 1991, the EPA reversed course and reclassified glyphosate as showing “evidence of non-carcinogenicity.” At least two committee members refused to sign the reclassification report.
In 2025, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted one of the most influential papers supporting glyphosate’s safety — a paper that the EPA and international regulators had used to justify the product’s safety — after researchers raised concerns about Monsanto’s role in its authorship and the integrity of its conclusions. The retraction means that a pillar of the regulatory case for glyphosate’s safety has been formally withdrawn by the scientific journal that published it.
This evidence is different from a label claim. A label claim says the company should have warned you. The Monsanto Papers say the company actively corrupted the science that was supposed to determine whether a warning was needed in the first place. That is fraud. That is the deliberate creation of a false scientific record. And preemption of warning claims does not immunize a company for fraud.
Former EPA employees submitted a brief supporting plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case, arguing that Monsanto’s claims about the agency’s position overlooked the EPA’s own long history of internal disagreement over glyphosate’s cancer risks. The agency’s own toxicology branch raised cancer concerns in 1985. Committee members refused to sign the 1991 reclassification. The internal dissent is part of the public record — and it undercuts the argument that the EPA’s approval was a clean, unanimous scientific judgment that state courts must accept as gospel.
The Science Conflict — Why the EPA Approval Is Not the Last Word
The Supreme Court ruling treats EPA label approval as a federal standard that state law cannot override. But the ruling does not — and cannot — resolve the underlying scientific question of whether glyphosate causes cancer. That question remains deeply contested, and the conflict itself is evidence.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer — the World Health Organization’s specialized cancer agency — classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. IARC’s classification is based on a systematic review of the scientific evidence by an international panel of experts. It is one of the most authoritative cancer classifications in the world.
The EPA disagrees. The agency’s current position is that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” But that position has a troubled history. The EPA’s own toxicology branch classified glyphosate as a possible carcinogen in 1985. The reversal to “evidence of non-carcinogenicity” in 1991 was contested within the agency itself. And the 2025 retraction of a key safety paper undermines the scientific basis of the EPA’s current stance.
FOIA-obtained records show that the EPA administrator met privately with Bayer’s chief executive months before the Supreme Court hearing to discuss strategy. The EPA did not provide a public response to questions about this meeting. Bayer characterized it as a routine regulatory interaction. The public is entitled to ask whether the agency whose approval is now being used to shield the company from lawsuits was coordinating with that company on how to win those lawsuits.
In February 2026, the President signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to double down on glyphosate production as a matter of national security — weeks before Bayer filed its opening brief with the Supreme Court. Critics say the order was designed to shield manufacturers from liability. The timing is part of the public record.
This is the context in which the Supreme Court ruled that EPA label approval preempts state warning claims. The ruling says the federal regulatory process is the arbiter of what warnings are required. But the federal regulatory process itself is under question — shaped by a company that ghostwrote the science, by an agency with a documented history of internal disagreement, and by a political administration that used emergency wartime powers to protect a herbicide manufacturer from liability.
The science conflict between IARC and the EPA is not a footnote. It is the evidentiary foundation for every surviving theory. It supports design defect (the product is carcinogenic). It supports fraud (the company corrupted the science that was supposed to evaluate carcinogenicity). It supports negligence in testing (the company manipulated the research rather than conducting honest studies). And it supports punitive damages (the company knew of cancer concerns since 1985 and chose to suppress rather than investigate them).
Bayer and Monsanto — the Corporate Defendant and Its Money
Bayer AG acquired Monsanto in 2018. Since then, Bayer has been the architect of Monsanto’s litigation and settlement strategy. Under principles of successor liability, Bayer stands behind Monsanto’s product design, marketing, testing, and warning decisions — all of the conduct that produced the litigation.
Bayer has created a $7.25 billion class-action settlement fund for Roundup claims. Critics — including plaintiffs’ attorneys who did not participate in the deal — say the fund is designed to protect the corporation more than the cancer patients it claims to help. The fund reportedly directs $675 million in fees to the attorneys who brokered the deal while leaving victims with minimal payouts. The settlement would also allow Bayer to continue selling Roundup without cancer warnings.
Supporters of the deal argue it is the only realistic option, warning that without it, plaintiffs could wait indefinitely in a legal backlog or receive nothing if Bayer declares bankruptcy. That argument carries some weight after the Supreme Court ruling — but it also serves Bayer’s interests, which is exactly why any settlement offer should be reviewed by an independent attorney who was not part of the deal that created it.
Bayer told the public that Monsanto’s involvement in the ghostwritten studies was “appropriately disclosed” in their acknowledgment sections. A journal retracted the paper anyway. The company states that glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide over the past 50 years and that thousands of studies have examined its safety. But the quality of those studies, and the role Monsanto played in authoring them, is precisely what the Monsanto Papers call into question.
Bayer has also updated Roundup formulations for residential and garden use to be glyphosate-free. But environmentalists warn that the new formulation’s active ingredient — diquat dibromide — is banned in the European Union and is reportedly 200 times more toxic than glyphosate with long-term exposure. The company is simultaneously seeking approval for a new herbicide, icafolin-methyl, for which there is not a single independent study assessing its human health impact. And dicamba, another Bayer herbicide, has been linked to liver cancer. The pattern is one of substituting one controversial chemical for another while litigation chases the last one.
This is the defendant you are up against. A global pharmaceutical and chemical conglomerate with the resources to fight every case, the political connections to shape regulation, and the legal strategy to use every procedural ruling — including this Supreme Court decision — to minimize what it pays.
Missouri Law — How Your Case Works in This State
The lead plaintiff case that went to the Supreme Court originated in St. Louis, Missouri, where a 2023 jury awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after decades of Roundup use. St. Louis City and St. Louis County are historically favorable plaintiff venues in Missouri product liability litigation, with a sophisticated juror pool familiar with industrial and chemical corporate defendants. That venue advantage matters — but the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling now overlays every state-law failure-to-warn claim nationally, regardless of how favorable the forum.
Comparative fault. Missouri applies pure comparative fault. That means your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, but it is not barred entirely — regardless of how high that percentage runs. If a jury finds you 20 percent at fault, your award is reduced by 20 percent. If it finds you 80 percent at fault, you still recover 20 percent of the award. The defense will work hard to pin fault percentage on you — every point is money — but in Missouri, comparative fault reduces, it does not eliminate.
Missouri applies pure comparative fault, meaning a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault but is not barred entirely regardless of how high that percentage runs.
Statute of limitations. Missouri’s statute of limitations for personal injury is five years. For toxic tort cases like Roundup exposure, Missouri follows the discovery rule — meaning the clock starts not from the date of exposure, but from when you discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) your injury and its cause. For many plaintiffs, that clock started when they were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and later learned of the potential connection to glyphosate. Five years from that date of discovery is your filing window. If your loved one died from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, wrongful death claims carry their own statutory deadline — and you should not assume it is the same as the personal injury clock.
Damages. Missouri does not impose a general statutory cap on compensatory damages in product liability cases. That means economic damages — medical bills, lost wages, future medical care — and non-economic damages — pain, suffering, loss of quality of life — are not artificially capped the way they are in some states’ medical malpractice regimes. Punitive damages are available in Missouri but require a showing of outrageous conduct — a standard the Monsanto Papers evidence is specifically designed to meet.
The No Immunity for Glyphosate Act. A bipartisan legislative response to the preemption problem has been reported as passed — legislation designed to prevent federal pesticide law from overriding state tort claims. If this legislation is in effect and applies to your case, it may partially restore the failure-to-warn theory that the Supreme Court just preempted. Confirm the act’s current effective date and scope with an attorney before relying on it — legislation in this area is moving quickly, and its retroactive application to pending cases is a legal question that must be analyzed case by case.
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma — the Injury and Its Proof
The primary injury across the Roundup litigation is non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma — a cancer of the lymphatic system, specifically of the lymphocytes, the white blood cells that help the body fight infection. NHL is not one disease but a group of more than 70 subtypes, each with its own biology, prognosis, and treatment protocol. The most common subtype in Roundup plaintiffs is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, an aggressive but often treatable form.
How it is diagnosed. NHL is diagnosed through biopsy of an affected lymph node or tissue — a surgical procedure that removes cells for pathological examination. The pathology report identifies the specific subtype, which determines treatment. Additional staging workup includes CT or PET imaging to determine how widely the disease has spread, bone marrow biopsy in some cases, and blood tests.
How it is treated. Treatment depends on subtype and stage but commonly involves chemotherapy regimens. For many subtypes, the backbone of treatment is a rituximab-based protocol — rituximab is a monoclonal antibody that targets a specific protein on the surface of B-cell lymphoma cells. It is often combined with traditional chemotherapy drugs (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone — a combination known as R-CHOP). Radiation therapy may be added for localized disease. For refractory or relapsed cases, stem cell transplant — either autologous (the patient’s own cells) or allogeneic (donor cells) — may be necessary. CAR-T cell therapy, an advanced immunotherapy, is an emerging option for certain relapsed cases.
What the family sees. The chemotherapy regimen is grueling. Rituximab infusions can cause infusion reactions — fever, chills, rash, difficulty breathing — particularly during the first dose. Doxorubicin is a “red devil” drug — the liquid is bright red, and it carries a lifetime dose limit because it can damage the heart. Vincristine causes peripheral neuropathy — numbness, tingling, pain in the hands and feet — that may never fully resolve. Prednisone causes mood changes, insomnia, weight gain, and immune suppression. The treatment takes months, and the recovery takes longer.
Recurrence. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma can recur. For aggressive subtypes like DLBCL, recurrence typically happens within the first two to three years after treatment. For indolent subtypes like follicular lymphoma, recurrence is expected — the disease is considered incurable but manageable, a chronic cancer that requires ongoing surveillance and periodic retreatment over years or decades.
The proof problem the defense exploits. NHL has many known causes and risk factors unrelated to glyphosate. These include age, family history, certain viral infections (Epstein-Barr, HTLV-1, HIV), bacterial infections (H. pylori), immunosuppression (organ transplant, autoimmune disease), and prior chemotherapy or radiation. The defense will argue that your NHL came from one of these other causes, not from Roundup. The counter is specific causation expert testimony — a qualified oncologist or epidemiologist who can testify that your exposure duration, frequency, and dose make glyphosate a substantial contributing factor to your cancer, and that your other risk factors do not adequately explain the disease. This requires detailed exposure reconstruction: how many years you used Roundup, how frequently, how much, and through what route (spraying, mixing, skin contact, inhalation).
The Evidence Clock — What Records Exist and How Fast They Disappear
Every toxic tort case is a race against the destruction of evidence. The disease appears decades after the exposure — the proof of that exposure is a paper trail with a legal expiration date. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally die.
Monsanto Papers and related corporate documents. Internal Monsanto documents — showing ghostwriting, scientific suppression, knowledge of cancer risk since 1985, and coordinated attacks on critics — were produced in prior bellwether litigation. These documents are the foundation for fraud and punitive damages on any surviving claim. Additional caches may exist in unsealed depositories. Bayer may seek to restrict access post-ruling. If you are in existing multidistrict litigation discovery, secure access immediately. If you are filing a new case, these documents may be obtainable through discovery or subpoena — but access is not guaranteed and must be pursued aggressively.
EPA internal records and FOIA-produced communications. FOIA requests should be filed immediately for all communications between the EPA and Bayer or Monsanto regarding glyphosate classification, label approval, and Supreme Court strategy. These records show internal disagreement over carcinogenicity, the 1985 possible-carcinogen classification, the refusal of committee members to sign the 1991 reclassification, and the private meetings between EPA leadership and Bayer’s CEO. Agency record retention schedules vary, and political appointee communications are at risk during administration transitions. File FOIA requests now, not later.
Your Roundup purchase and usage records. Retail purchase records, agricultural application logs, and employment records establish your exposure dose, duration, and frequency — the foundation for specific causation. These records degrade over time. Commercial retention cycles for retail purchase data are often shorter than the limitations clock in your state. Request them immediately with preservation letters. If you sprayed Roundup at home, gather receipts, credit card statements, and any home-improvement store purchase histories. If you sprayed it at work — in parks, on farms, at a golf course, for a landscaping company — employment records and application logs are critical.
Your medical records and pathology reports. Your complete oncology file — biopsy pathology, treatment records, staging imaging, surveillance scans — is stable in medical provider records but must be collected and authenticated. Obtain the full file, not just summaries. The pathology report that identifies your specific NHL subtype is essential for both damages quantification and causation analysis.
The retracted 2025 study and related correspondence. The journal retraction notice is published. The underlying correspondence and reviewer communications may require subpoena. Obtain the retraction notice immediately — it is a published document that supports the fraud theory by showing that a key safety paper was compromised by Monsanto’s involvement.
USDA records on scientific interference. Government employment and inspection records have defined retention schedules. FOIA requests should be filed for the USDA survey results and personnel files of scientists who reported interference with pesticide safety research. These support the pattern-of-conduct evidence for fraud and punitive damages.
The fastest-dying evidence — retail purchase records, application logs, and employment records — should be the first thing preserved. The day you call a lawyer is the day preservation letters should go out to every entity that holds evidence of your exposure.
What Your Case Is Worth — Honest Numbers
We will not promise you a number without seeing your records. But we can give you the framework that governs value in these cases after the Supreme Court ruling.
Low end: $50,000 or less. Cases that rely solely on the failure-to-warn theory — now preempted — with weak evidence on alternative theories, limited exposure documentation, and significant alternative-causation risk factors for NHL. These cases face dismissal on preemption grounds and may settle for nuisance value if they survive at all. The settlement fund may offer a floor for some of these plaintiffs, but the terms should be reviewed by independent counsel before acceptance.
Mid-range: $100,000 to $1,000,000. Cases with moderate exposure evidence (regular Roundup use for several years), clear NHL diagnosis with treatment records, and at least one viable non-preempted theory (design defect or negligence in testing). These cases may settle or produce moderate verdicts if they reach trial, with value driven by the strength of the causation expert and the quality of the exposure reconstruction.
High end: $1,000,000 to $5,000,000+. Cases with compelling fraud evidence from the Monsanto Papers, clear and well-documented causation (long-term, high-frequency Roundup exposure with few alternative NHL risk factors), severe injury (aggressive NHL requiring intensive treatment, stem cell transplant, or resulting in death), and punitive damages that survive on a viable liability theory. The pre-ruling baseline was the $1.25 million Durnell verdict from St. Louis — but that verdict was based on the failure-to-warn theory that is now preempted. Post-ruling, high-value cases must be built on different theories with different evidence.
The critical value drivers. Jurisdiction (Missouri’s pure comparative fault, no general damages cap, and favorable St. Louis venue all increase value), theory viability (fraud and design defect survive where failure-to-warn does not), injury severity (aggressive NHL with stem cell transplant or wrongful death carries higher value than indolent NHL managed with outpatient treatment), exposure evidence quality (documented, long-term, high-frequency use is worth more than occasional residential use), and the punitive damages foundation (the Monsanto Papers evidence is the multiplier on any surviving case).
The settlement fund trap. Bayer’s $7.25 billion fund was designed to cap the company’s exposure while continuing to sell Roundup without warnings. Critics report that $675 million goes to the attorneys who brokered the deal, while individual plaintiff payouts have been minimal relative to injury severity. If you receive a settlement fund offer, do not accept it without having it reviewed by an attorney who was not part of creating the fund and who can honestly assess whether your individual case — with its specific facts, exposure evidence, and injury profile — is worth more on its own than what the fund offers.
The Bayer Playbook — What They Will Do and How to Counter It
Bayer and its lawyers have a playbook for Roundup cases. It was built over years of litigation and refined after the Supreme Court ruling. Here are the moves you should expect — and the counter to each.
Play 1: “Preemption bars everything.” Bayer will file a motion to dismiss arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling preempts not just failure-to-warn claims but every state-law claim related to Roundup. The counter: preemption of warning claims does not automatically reach design defect, fraud, or negligence in testing. These theories attack different conduct — the product’s formulation, the company’s deception, the integrity of its research — not the label. The complaint must be pleaded carefully to distinguish preempted from non-preempted theories from the outset.
Play 2: “The EPA said it’s safe.” Bayer will cite the EPA’s classification of glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic” as conclusive proof that the product does not cause cancer. The counter: the EPA’s classification has a documented history of internal disagreement, political influence, and reliance on industry-authored science. IARC — the world’s leading cancer authority — classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. The conflict between the two agencies is itself evidence. And the 2025 retraction of a key safety paper undermines the scientific foundation of the EPA’s position.
Play 3: “Your cancer came from something else.” Bayer will retain oncology experts to testify that your NHL was caused by age, genetics, viral infection, immunosuppression, or some other factor — not glyphosate. The counter: a qualified specific-causation expert who has reviewed your exposure history, your medical records, and your risk factor profile, and who can testify that glyphosate exposure was a substantial contributing factor to your cancer. The defense will exploit every gap in your exposure documentation — which is why preserving purchase records and usage history is the first priority.
Play 4: “Take the settlement fund money.” Bayer’s representatives will contact plaintiffs — sometimes through the settlement fund administrators, sometimes through attorneys who participated in the deal — and urge acceptance of fund payouts. The pitch is urgency: take this now, because the Supreme Court ruling means you might get nothing. The counter: an independent attorney who can evaluate whether your specific case is worth more than the fund offers, and who understands that the ruling eliminated one theory but not all theories. The fund is an option for some plaintiffs. It is not the only option, and for plaintiffs with strong fraud evidence and clear causation, it may be a bad deal.
Play 5: “Your exposure was too small.” For residential users who sprayed Roundup on weeds in their yard or garden, Bayer will argue the exposure was too limited to cause cancer. The counter: specific causation expert testimony that ties your actual exposure — even residential exposure — to your cancer, using dose-response modeling and temporal fit. Some plaintiffs were agricultural workers or groundskeepers with occupational exposure of a different magnitude. Your exposure profile determines your case’s strength, and it must be reconstructed carefully.
How a Surviving Case Is Actually Built
Here is the chronological walk of how a Roundup case is built after the Supreme Court ruling — from the day you call to the day a number is put on the table.
Week one: preservation and intake. The first move is a preservation letter to every entity that holds evidence — Bayer, the EPA (via FOIA), your Roundup retailer, your employer if exposure was occupational, your medical providers. The letter demands that evidence be frozen before it can be legally destroyed. Simultaneously, we begin building your exposure history: when did you use Roundup, how often, how much, for how many years, through what route. Receipts, credit card statements, employment records, agricultural application logs, tax returns showing farming income — everything that documents contact with glyphosate.
Weeks two through eight: medical records and expert review. We obtain your complete oncology file — pathology reports, treatment records, imaging, surveillance scans, medication records. We review your NHL subtype, your treatment history, your prognosis, and your risk factors. We begin identifying expert witnesses: a general causation expert (an epidemiologist or toxicologist who can testify that glyphosate causes NHL), a specific causation expert (an oncologist who can testify that your exposure caused your specific cancer), and potentially a life-care planner (to quantify your future medical needs and costs).
Months two through six: complaint, filing, and discovery. The complaint is drafted with non-preempted theories as the primary counts — design defect, fraud based on the Monsanto Papers, negligence in testing and research — with failure-to-warn pleaded as a secondary theory subject to the preemption ruling. The case is filed in the most favorable available venue. For Missouri plaintiffs, that may be St. Louis City or St. Louis County, depending on where you live and where the exposure occurred. Discovery begins: document demands to Bayer, depositions of corporate witnesses, expert witness disclosures, and the fight over access to the Monsanto Papers and related internal corporate records.
Months six through eighteen: depositions and expert preparation. Corporate witnesses are deposed under oath — the scientists who authored the ghostwritten studies, the executives who directed the scientific suppression program, the regulatory affairs staff who communicated with the EPA. Your medical experts prepare their reports. Your specific causation expert reviews your exposure reconstruction and your medical records and forms an opinion linking your Roundup use to your NHL.
Mediation and trial. Mediation may be approached — but cautiously, given Bayer’s demonstrated strategy of using settlement funds to cap exposure while continuing sales without warnings. Any demand must account for the full punitive value of the Monsanto Papers evidence. If the case does not settle, it goes to trial — where a jury in your county hears the evidence, hears the science, and hears what Monsanto did to the scientific record. The Supreme Court ruling means the jury will not hear a failure-to-warn claim in the same way prior juries did. But the jury will hear about ghostwriting. It will hear about scientific suppression. It will hear about the 1985 EPA cancer classification that Monsanto pressured to reverse. It will hear about a company that called its product “safe enough to drink” while its own scientists were writing studies to hide the evidence that it was not.
Your First Steps — What to Do Right Now
Do not sign anything from the settlement fund without independent legal review. Bayer’s $7.25 billion settlement fund is designed to resolve claims quickly and on terms favorable to the company. If you receive a settlement offer, a release form, or a class-action notice, do not sign it. Do not return it. Do not call the number on the letter. Call a lawyer who was not part of creating the fund and who can tell you honestly whether your individual case is worth more.
Document your exposure history now. Write down everything you can remember about your Roundup use. When did you start using it? How often did you spray? Where — your yard, a garden, a farm, a park, a golf course, a commercial property? How much did you use per application? Did you mix concentrate or use a ready-to-use bottle? Did you wear protective equipment? Did you get it on your skin? Did you breathe the spray? How many years did you use it? Did you stop? When? Gather receipts, credit card statements, home-improvement store purchase histories, employment records, and any other documents that show you purchased or used Roundup. These records degrade — request them now.
Gather your medical records. Obtain your complete oncology file from every treating provider — the biopsy pathology report, chemotherapy treatment records, imaging studies, medication records, and surveillance scans. If your loved one died from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, obtain the death certificate and the complete medical record from the treating hospital and oncologist.
Do not give a recorded statement to anyone. If Bayer’s lawyers, the settlement fund administrators, or any insurance representative contacts you and asks you to describe your Roundup use or your medical history on a recording, decline. A recorded statement is engineered to be quoted against you — to minimize your exposure, to emphasize alternative risk factors, to create gaps in your timeline. Everything you say to them can and will be used to reduce what they pay you.
Call a lawyer who understands the preemption ruling. The Supreme Court decision changed the legal landscape overnight. Firms that were building Roundup cases on failure-to-warn theories need to pivot — and many have not. You need a lawyer who can identify which non-preempted theories your case supports, who understands the Monsanto Papers and how to use them, and who has the trial experience to take a case to a jury when the other side will not offer what it is worth.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still file a Roundup cancer lawsuit after the Supreme Court ruling?
Yes — but the legal theory must be different. The Supreme Court ruled that failure-to-warn claims are likely preempted when the EPA approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning. However, design defect claims, fraud claims based on the Monsanto Papers, and negligence in testing claims may survive preemption because they attack the product’s formulation and the company’s conduct, not the label. Your case must be built on these non-preempted theories from the outset.
I already have a Roundup case filed. What happens to it?
If your case was filed on a failure-to-warn theory, Bayer will likely file a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment citing the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling. Your attorney should evaluate whether your case can be amended to include non-preempted theories — design defect, fraud, negligence in testing — that survive the ruling. The amendment may need to be made quickly, so do not wait to ask your lawyer how the ruling affects your specific case.
Should I accept the settlement fund offer?
Not without independent review. Bayer’s $7.25 billion settlement fund has been criticized for directing $675 million to the attorneys who brokered the deal while providing minimal payouts to individual plaintiffs. The fund allows Bayer to continue selling Roundup without cancer warnings. For plaintiffs with strong fraud evidence and clear causation, individual litigation on non-preempted theories may be worth significantly more than what the fund offers. Have any offer reviewed by an attorney who was not part of creating the fund.
How long do I have to file a Roundup cancer lawsuit in Missouri?
Missouri’s statute of limitations for personal injury is five years from the date you discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) your injury and its cause. For most Roundup plaintiffs, that clock starts when you were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and later learned of the potential connection to glyphosate exposure. If your loved one died from NHL, wrongful death claims carry their own statutory deadline that may differ. Do not assume you have plenty of time — the discovery rule is fact-specific, and the defense will argue the clock started earlier than you think.
What if I only used Roundup on my yard at home — is my exposure enough?
Residential exposure is harder to prove than occupational exposure, but it is not necessarily insufficient. What matters is the duration, frequency, and dose of your exposure — how many years you used it, how often, how much, and how you came into contact with it (skin contact, inhalation, mixing concentrate). A specific causation expert can evaluate your exposure profile and determine whether it is sufficient to support a causal link to your cancer. Long-term, regular residential use over many years may be sufficient. Occasional use of a ready-to-use spray bottle may not be.
What evidence do I need to prove my case?
You need three categories of evidence. First, exposure evidence — receipts, purchase records, employment records, application logs, or any documentation showing you purchased and used Roundup over a period of years. Second, medical evidence — your biopsy pathology report, treatment records, imaging, and surveillance scans documenting your non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma diagnosis and its specific subtype. Third, corporate misconduct evidence — the Monsanto Papers and related internal documents showing ghostwriting, scientific suppression, and knowledge of cancer risk, which support the fraud and punitive damages theories that survive preemption.
Is the science on glyphosate and cancer settled?
No. The science is actively contested. The World Health Organization’s cancer agency (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015. The EPA classifies it as “not likely to be carcinogenic” — but that classification has a documented history of internal disagreement, political influence, and reliance on industry-authored science. A key safety paper was retracted by its journal in 2025. The conflict between IARC and the EPA is itself evidence — and it supports every surviving theory in your case.
What is my Roundup case worth?
It depends on the strength of your exposure evidence, the viability of your non-preempted legal theories, the severity of your injury, and whether punitive damages are available. Cases with strong fraud evidence and clear causation may be worth seven figures or more. Cases facing preemption barriers with weak exposure evidence may settle for far less. The $1.25 million Durnell verdict from St. Louis in 2023 provides a pre-ruling baseline — but that verdict was based on the failure-to-warn theory that is now preempted. Post-ruling case values depend on different theories and different evidence. We can give you an honest assessment after reviewing your records.
What if my family member died from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Roundup?
A wrongful death claim may be available, depending on who survived the decedent and the applicable statute of limitations. Wrongful death damages in Missouri can include the financial support the decedent would have provided, the companionship and guidance lost, and the conscious pain and suffering the decedent experienced between injury and death. The punitive damages evidence from the Monsanto Papers applies to wrongful death cases as well. If your loved one died recently, do not wait — the statute of limitations for wrongful death may be shorter than for personal injury.
Can I still get a jury trial after the Supreme Court ruling?
Yes — if your case is built on non-preempted theories. The concern raised by trial attorneys is that the Supreme Court ruling could keep plaintiffs from ever reaching a jury on failure-to-warn claims. But design defect, fraud, and negligence claims are different theories that may survive preemption and proceed to trial. A jury that hears evidence of ghostwritten science, suppressed research, and a company that called its product “safe enough to drink” while hiding cancer data is a jury that can hold the company accountable — even without a failure-to-warn claim.
Who We Are and How We Work
Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — which means he knows how to find the story the documents tell, and how to present it to a jury in language they understand. He does not lose cases because he failed to read the evidence. He has tried cases against corporate defendants who have more lawyers than he has staff, and he has won because preparation beats resources when the facts are on your side.
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 how claims are valued from the inside — how the reserve is set, how the settlement range is calculated, how the decision to fight or pay is actually made. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
We handle product liability and toxic tort cases on a contingency fee basis. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33 percent before trial and 40 percent if the case goes to trial. Your first consultation is free, and it is confidential. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 — 1-888-288-9911 — at any hour. We have 24-hour live staff, not an answering service. Hablamos Español.
The Supreme Court ruling changed the landscape for Roundup litigation. It did not end it. What it did is separate the cases that were built on one theory from the cases that can be built on different theories — theories that require deeper knowledge of the preemption doctrine, the Monsanto Papers, the science conflict between IARC and the EPA, and the specific Missouri legal framework that governs your claim. That is the work we do. That is what we will bring to your case.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different, and the Supreme Court’s ruling affects each case differently depending on its specific facts, theories, and procedural posture. The only way to know what your case is worth and whether it can survive preemption is to have it evaluated by an attorney who understands the ruling and the non-preempted theories that may still hold the company accountable.
Call us. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And the conversation may be the one that changes how you understand what happened to you.
1-888-ATTY-911. 1-888-288-9911. Contact us. We answer.