Roundup Cancer Lawsuit Survives Supreme Court FIFRA Preemption in Massachusetts Federal Court: Attorney911 Brings Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice to Glyphosate Toxic-Tort Claims, We Pursue Monsanto and Its Bayer AG Corporate Parent on Design-Defect, Consumer-Protection and Negligent-Testing Theories That Survive Durnell v. Monsanto, We Secure Medical Records, Purchase Receipts and Monsanto Internal Research Before the Evidence Clock Runs, Massachusetts Punitive-Damages Doctrine Constrains Recovery While Compensatory Damages Remain Uncapped, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Bayer Claims Machine Values and Denies These Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911
Your Roundup Cancer Case Is Not Over — What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled You heard the news. The Supreme Court ruled against Roundup plaintiffs. You used Roundup for years — on your lawn, your garden, the grounds you maintained, the fields you worked — and then the diagnosis came. Cancer. And now you are sitting at your kitchen table at two in the morning, reading headlines that say the nation’s highest court just closed the door on people like you, and you are wondering whether it is even worth calling a lawyer. It is. The door did not close. One door narrowed. Others are still open — and a federal judge in Massachusetts just said so on the record. Here is what actually happened. The Supreme Court held that one specific type of claim — a state-law failure-to-warn claim that would require Monsanto to put a different cancer warning on the Roundup label than the one the EPA approved — is preempted by federal pesticide law. That is it. That is what the Court decided. It did not say Roundup is safe. It did not say Monsanto cannot be sued. It did not say glyphosate does not cause cancer.…