Weedkiller maker asks Supreme Court to block lawsuits claiming it failed to warn about cancer
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether federal law preempts thousands of state lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people that its popular weedkiller could cause cancer.
Bayer’s new request to the nation’s highest court comes as it is simultaneously pursing legislation in several states seeking to erect a legal shield against lawsuits targeting Roundup, a commonly used weedkiller for both farms and homes. Bayer disputes the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases and asserted Monday that the future of American agriculture is at stake.
In a court filing Friday, Bayer urged the Supreme Court to take up a Missouri case that awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis. The federally approved label for Roundup includes no warning of cancer. Bayer contends federal pesticide laws preempt states from adopting additional labeling for products and thus prohibits failure-to-warn lawsuits brought under state laws.
The Supreme Court in 2022 declined to hear a similar claim from Bayer in a California case that awarded more than $86 million to a married couple.
But Germany-based Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, contends the Supreme Court should intervene now because lower courts have issued conflicting rulings. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bayer’s favor last year while the 9th and 11th Circuits have ruled against its stance.
An attorney representing the St. Louis gardener said Bayer is “really grasping at straws.”
“The reality is they don’t want to put the warning on it because they’re afraid” that if people “realize it’s unsafe, it will reduce sales,” said attorney Jim Onder, whose firm has more than 20,000 clients with failure-to-warn claims regarding Roundup.
Bayer faces about 181,000 Roundup claims, mostly from residential users.
Because of that, Bayer stopped using the key ingredient glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market. But glyphosate remains in agricultural products. It’s designed to be used with genetically modified seeds that can resist the weedkiller’s deadly effect, thus allowing farmers to produce more while conserving the soil by tilling it less.
Bayer has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if the lawsuits persist.
“This is a bigger threat to innovation in general, when we think about agriculture,” said Jess Christiansen, head of communications for Bayer’s crop science division. “If glyphosate falls to the litigation industry, what could be next?”
Bayer has made similar arguments to lawmakers in several states. Georgia recently became the first to pass legislation backed by Bayer that would deem federally approved pesticide labels sufficient to satisfy any state-law duty to warn customers. Gov. Brian Kemp has not indicated whether he will sign the bill.
A jury in Georgia recently ordered Bayer to pay nearly $2.1 billion to a man who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Legislation barring similar state failure-to-warn claims for pesticide makers passed the Tennessee Senate on Thursday and the North Dakota House earlier this year and is now pending in the second chamber in each state.
Bayer also has focused heavily on Missouri and Iowa, home respectively to its North America crop science division and a Roundup manufacturing facility.
The Republican-led Missouri House narrowly passed the legislation in February. But a coalition of Republican senators has vowed to block it. State Sen. Nick Schroer has said it “would be a betrayal to the public trust” and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial to grant “immunity” to pesticide manufacturers against particular legal claims.
Similar legislation advanced through the Iowa Senate this year with exclusively Republican support. But the Iowa House declined to bring the bill forward before last week’s legislative deadline. Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley told reporters Thursday “there’s not support” within the Republican House caucus at this time.
The bill drew staunch opposition from environmental justice groups that denounced it as a “cancer gag act,” saying it would limit the rights of Iowans to hold pesticide companies accountable if their products cause harm. During a February protest at the Iowa capitol building, speakers took turns telling stories of family members throughout the state who have been diagnosed with cancers.
Bayer’s new request to the nation’s highest court comes as it is simultaneously pursing legislation in several states seeking to erect a legal shield against lawsuits targeting Roundup, a commonly used weedkiller for both farms and homes. Bayer disputes the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases and asserted Monday that the future of American agriculture is at stake.
In a court filing Friday, Bayer urged the Supreme Court to take up a Missouri case that awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis. The federally approved label for Roundup includes no warning of cancer. Bayer contends federal pesticide laws preempt states from adopting additional labeling for products and thus prohibits failure-to-warn lawsuits brought under state laws.
The Supreme Court in 2022 declined to hear a similar claim from Bayer in a California case that awarded more than $86 million to a married couple.
But Germany-based Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, contends the Supreme Court should intervene now because lower courts have issued conflicting rulings. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bayer’s favor last year while the 9th and 11th Circuits have ruled against its stance.
An attorney representing the St. Louis gardener said Bayer is “really grasping at straws.”
“The reality is they don’t want to put the warning on it because they’re afraid” that if people “realize it’s unsafe, it will reduce sales,” said attorney Jim Onder, whose firm has more than 20,000 clients with failure-to-warn claims regarding Roundup.
Bayer faces about 181,000 Roundup claims, mostly from residential users.
Because of that, Bayer stopped using the key ingredient glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market. But glyphosate remains in agricultural products. It’s designed to be used with genetically modified seeds that can resist the weedkiller’s deadly effect, thus allowing farmers to produce more while conserving the soil by tilling it less.
Bayer has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if the lawsuits persist.
“This is a bigger threat to innovation in general, when we think about agriculture,” said Jess Christiansen, head of communications for Bayer’s crop science division. “If glyphosate falls to the litigation industry, what could be next?”
Bayer has made similar arguments to lawmakers in several states. Georgia recently became the first to pass legislation backed by Bayer that would deem federally approved pesticide labels sufficient to satisfy any state-law duty to warn customers. Gov. Brian Kemp has not indicated whether he will sign the bill.
A jury in Georgia recently ordered Bayer to pay nearly $2.1 billion to a man who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Legislation barring similar state failure-to-warn claims for pesticide makers passed the Tennessee Senate on Thursday and the North Dakota House earlier this year and is now pending in the second chamber in each state.
Bayer also has focused heavily on Missouri and Iowa, home respectively to its North America crop science division and a Roundup manufacturing facility.
The Republican-led Missouri House narrowly passed the legislation in February. But a coalition of Republican senators has vowed to block it. State Sen. Nick Schroer has said it “would be a betrayal to the public trust” and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial to grant “immunity” to pesticide manufacturers against particular legal claims.
Similar legislation advanced through the Iowa Senate this year with exclusively Republican support. But the Iowa House declined to bring the bill forward before last week’s legislative deadline. Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley told reporters Thursday “there’s not support” within the Republican House caucus at this time.
The bill drew staunch opposition from environmental justice groups that denounced it as a “cancer gag act,” saying it would limit the rights of Iowans to hold pesticide companies accountable if their products cause harm. During a February protest at the Iowa capitol building, speakers took turns telling stories of family members throughout the state who have been diagnosed with cancers.
Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to New York’s ban on guns in ‘sensitive’ locations
NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a challenge to gun laws in New York that ban firearms from certain “sensitive” locations and require that handgun owners be of “good moral character.”
The high court did not give an explanation on why it chose not to hear the case.
The decision leaves in place an appeals court ruling that upheld provisions of the law while also striking down some elements.
In that earlier ruling, the appeals court allowed New York to continue enforcing parts of the law that ban firearms from certain so-called sensitive locations such as public transportation, hospitals and schools, and require that handgun owners prove “good moral character.”
But the court also blocked a requirement that handgun license applicants reveal their social media accounts and said the state can’t enforce part of the law that made it a crime to carry a concealed gun onto private property without the express consent of the owner.
Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul applauded the high court’s decision not to hear a challenge to the law on Monday, saying that “New York’s strong gun safety laws save lives.”
The Supreme Court in 2022 struck down New York’s old gun rules, which restricted guns being carried outside the home to people who could show they had a special need for protection.
New York lawmakers responded by crafting new rules that opened the door to more people getting handgun licenses while also setting up new restrictions on where guns could be carried.
Erich Pratt, senior vice president of the Gun Owners of America, a lobbying organization involved in the litigation, said “While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take this case, we will never stop fighting to defend the rights of gun owners across the country.”
The high court did not give an explanation on why it chose not to hear the case.
The decision leaves in place an appeals court ruling that upheld provisions of the law while also striking down some elements.
In that earlier ruling, the appeals court allowed New York to continue enforcing parts of the law that ban firearms from certain so-called sensitive locations such as public transportation, hospitals and schools, and require that handgun owners prove “good moral character.”
But the court also blocked a requirement that handgun license applicants reveal their social media accounts and said the state can’t enforce part of the law that made it a crime to carry a concealed gun onto private property without the express consent of the owner.
Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul applauded the high court’s decision not to hear a challenge to the law on Monday, saying that “New York’s strong gun safety laws save lives.”
The Supreme Court in 2022 struck down New York’s old gun rules, which restricted guns being carried outside the home to people who could show they had a special need for protection.
New York lawmakers responded by crafting new rules that opened the door to more people getting handgun licenses while also setting up new restrictions on where guns could be carried.
Erich Pratt, senior vice president of the Gun Owners of America, a lobbying organization involved in the litigation, said “While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take this case, we will never stop fighting to defend the rights of gun owners across the country.”
Supreme Court allows Trump administration to cut teacher-training money, for now
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s plea to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money as part of its anti-DEI efforts, while a lawsuit continues.
The justices split 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the three liberal justices in dissent.
The emergency appeal is among several the high court is considering in which the Justice Department argues that lower-court judges have improperly obstructed President Donald Trump’s agenda.
Friday’s order was the first time, in three attempts, that the nation’s highest court gave the administration what it wanted on an emergency basis.
The Supreme Court previously sided against the administration in another lawsuit over nearly $2 billion in foreign aid cuts in another divided 5-4 ruling, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority in both cases.
It remains to be seen whether Friday’s decision marks a narrow win or a broader shift in Trump’s favor.
The Trump administration is facing some 150 lawsuits in lower courts challenging his flurry of executive orders. That includes about two dozen over federal funding cuts, some totaling billions of dollars.
The teaching training case deals with cuts to more than 100 programs. They had been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Boston, who found that they were already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a temporary restraining order sought by eight Democratic-led states that argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from Trump’s administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
The federal appeals court in Boston turned away an appeal from the administration to allow them to resume.
The Republican president also has signed an executive order calling for the dismantling of the Education Department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.
The two programs at issue — the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — provide more than $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas such as math, science and special education, the states have argued. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.
Despite Joun’s finding that the programs already were being affected, the high court’s conservative majority wrote that the states can keep the programs running with their own money for now. By contrast, the majority said in an unsigned opinion, the federal government probably wouldn’t be able to recover the cash if it ultimately wins the lawsuit.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent that there was no reason for the court’s emergency intervention.
“Nowhere in its papers does the Government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here,” Kagan wrote.
In a separate opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, “It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the government’s application as an emergency.”
Roberts joined neither dissent, noting only that he would have denied the appeal.
The administration halted the programs without notice in February. Joun, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, found that the cancellations probably violated a federal law that requires a clear explanation.
The appellate panel that rejected the administration’s request for a stay also was made up of judges appointed by Democrats.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling as a “significant victory for President Trump and the rule of law.”
California is leading the ongoing lawsuit, joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.
Boston Public Schools have already had to fire several full-time employees due to the loss of grant funding, and the College of New Jersey has also canceled the rest of its teacher-residency program.
California State University has ended support for two dozen students in a similar program, and eliminated financial assistance for 50 incoming students.
The justices split 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the three liberal justices in dissent.
The emergency appeal is among several the high court is considering in which the Justice Department argues that lower-court judges have improperly obstructed President Donald Trump’s agenda.
Friday’s order was the first time, in three attempts, that the nation’s highest court gave the administration what it wanted on an emergency basis.
The Supreme Court previously sided against the administration in another lawsuit over nearly $2 billion in foreign aid cuts in another divided 5-4 ruling, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority in both cases.
It remains to be seen whether Friday’s decision marks a narrow win or a broader shift in Trump’s favor.
The Trump administration is facing some 150 lawsuits in lower courts challenging his flurry of executive orders. That includes about two dozen over federal funding cuts, some totaling billions of dollars.
The teaching training case deals with cuts to more than 100 programs. They had been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Boston, who found that they were already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a temporary restraining order sought by eight Democratic-led states that argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from Trump’s administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
The federal appeals court in Boston turned away an appeal from the administration to allow them to resume.
The Republican president also has signed an executive order calling for the dismantling of the Education Department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.
The two programs at issue — the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — provide more than $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas such as math, science and special education, the states have argued. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.
Despite Joun’s finding that the programs already were being affected, the high court’s conservative majority wrote that the states can keep the programs running with their own money for now. By contrast, the majority said in an unsigned opinion, the federal government probably wouldn’t be able to recover the cash if it ultimately wins the lawsuit.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent that there was no reason for the court’s emergency intervention.
“Nowhere in its papers does the Government defend the legality of canceling the education grants at issue here,” Kagan wrote.
In a separate opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, “It is beyond puzzling that a majority of Justices conceive of the government’s application as an emergency.”
Roberts joined neither dissent, noting only that he would have denied the appeal.
The administration halted the programs without notice in February. Joun, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, found that the cancellations probably violated a federal law that requires a clear explanation.
The appellate panel that rejected the administration’s request for a stay also was made up of judges appointed by Democrats.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling as a “significant victory for President Trump and the rule of law.”
California is leading the ongoing lawsuit, joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.
Boston Public Schools have already had to fire several full-time employees due to the loss of grant funding, and the College of New Jersey has also canceled the rest of its teacher-residency program.
California State University has ended support for two dozen students in a similar program, and eliminated financial assistance for 50 incoming students.
