A Supreme Day, But More Challenges Ahead: Glyphosate Ruling Marks Win, Not the End
June 29, 2026 As the U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its latest session, the agricultural industry had reason to celebrate. A long-time-in-coming decision on federal vs. state labels for glyphosate was finally settled. However, despite this favorable development, industry leaders and legal experts nonetheless foresee new challenges ahead for crop protection products.
But first, the good news. On June 25, the Court determined that federal pesticide regulations preempt state-law claims, finding that Bayer cannot be sued in state courts for failing to provide warnings that conflict with federally approved labeling requirements. The case originated with Missouri resident John Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than two decades of applying Roundup in his neighborhood. The final ruling on this case was 7-2.
The decision marks a significant legal victory for Bayer, which has spent years defending itself against litigation while setting aside an estimated $16 billion to settle claims. Earlier this year, the company proposed an additional $7.25 billion settlement intended to resolve many remaining cases.
Naturally, the agricultural industry’s reaction to this decision was overwhelmingly positive.
“This is great news for all farmers in the country,” says Jed Bower, President of the National Corn Growers Association and an Ohio farmer. “Today’s decision reaffirms that FIFRA [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act] is the law of the land and states cannot add undue and unproven requirements not backed by science.”
Daren Coppock, President and CEO at the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), echoed this sentiment.
“This is a significant win for the entire agricultural supply chain,” says Coppock. “The ruling reaffirms FIFRA as the ultimate authority on pesticide labels, that state courts cannot compel manufacturers to add warnings beyond what EPA has approved, and that state regulators cannot alter label requirements. States retain the authority to approve or disapprove registrations or to stipulate requirements, like temperature ranges that don’t go on the label, but they cannot require label changes. Had the Court ruled otherwise, we would have faced an untenable outcome of each state potentially having its own label.”
Dangers Ahead
Still, Coppock was quick to point out that although it was a victory for the agricultural industry, the Supreme Court decision doesn’t mark the end of legal challenges for crop protection products.
“The ruling is important but narrow — it only addresses failure-to-warn tort claims specifically,” he warns. “Other legalities, including design defect and negligence claims, remain unresolved and will likely continue to be pursued by plaintiffs’ attorneys.”
Legal experts that spoke with CropLife Magazine agreed. They point out that many product defect/negligence claims lawsuits were filed against crop protection products in state courts for many years before the federal courts got involved. Furthermore, since these new lawsuits won’t involve federal labeling questions, they will remain at the state level and “could take significant amounts of time to play out.”
In addition, the number of companies being named in these lawsuits could grow. For example, up until now, legal experts say, most of the high-profile lawsuits against glyphosate have specifically targeted one supplier, Bayer. Now, however, generic producers and distributors are likely to be named instead. In fact, one such lawsuit against glyphosate distributed by Tenkoz, Inc. has already been filed in Missouri.
Finally, legal challenges to newer crop protection products on the grounds they have been insufficiently vetted by EPA are likely to continue. In recent years, products such as dicamba and Enlist (2,4-D) have had their registrations challenged in court. This has led to years of approvals, court vacated approvals, reapprovals, and numerous label changes, not to mention the time spent in court by all the parties involved.
ARA’s Coppock also worries about the prospects for new crop protection product approvals in this kind of “quick-to-challenge in the courtroom” environment.
“Beyond the courtroom, the registration process itself remains a concern,” he says. “At least six new uses or active ingredients have completed scientific review at the EPA but have not received final approval, held up by political pressure rather than science.”
The industry’s best response to this, says Coppock, is the same one that helped it prevail at the Supreme Court.
“[We must] stay grounded in the science, engage policymakers directly, and make the case clearly and consistently that America’s pesticide regulatory system exists to protect both people and the agricultural supply chain that feeds them,” he says.
Subscribe Today For
