Roundup has been the subject of countless lawsuits. One critical case is Monsanto v. Hardeman, 21-241. Bayer has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for relief. Recent Court action suggests that the Supreme Court might hear the case. In December the U.S. Supreme Court solicited the Biden administration’s opinion on whether to hear Bayer AG’s appeal of a $25 million award to Edwin Hardeman. Hardeman asserts that decades of exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Bayer contends that the Ninth Circuit wrongly affirmed the district court’s decision. The company argues that the Ninth Circuit wrongly decided that FIFRA did not preempt Hardeman’s state-law failure-to-warn claim, despite EPA’s conclusion that such a cancer warning would be false and therefore prohibited by FIFRA. The company asserts that ruling contravenes the Supreme Court’s holding that any state labeling requirement not “genuinely equivalent” to a FIFRA labeling requirement is preempted. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 454 (2005).
Bayer further argues that the Ninth Circuit wrongly affirmed the admission of expert opinions that glyphosate can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and caused Hardeman’s cancer specifically, even though those opinions rested on “little more than subjective intuitions” in conflict with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993), which requires trial courts to play “a gatekeeping role” to ensure that expert opinions are reliable, and with Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires expert opinions to be the product of “reliable principles and methods,” “reliably applied … to the facts of the case,” Fed. R. Evid. 702(c)-(d).
The following groups have filed amici briefs in the case: CropLife America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Atlantic Legal Foundation, Lawyers for Civil Justice, Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Retail Litigation Center, Inc., and Washington Legal Foundation. In response to the Supreme Court announcement, Bayer released a statement declaring that “[n]ow that the Supreme Court has requested input from the Solicitor General in this case, we will not entertain any further settlement discussions with plaintiff lawyers that are representing a substantial number of Roundup claims.”
It is expected that, before the current Court term ends in late June, the justices will probably say whether or not they will hear the case.