Author: pr-moritz
Last saved by: Roland Birkhoff
Company: Bayer
Document comments: V-2025-03-04

U.S. Supreme Court asks for views of Solicitor General 
in Durnell case
•	Company expects decision on petition during beginning of the 2025-2026 Court session
•	Bayer continues its multipronged strategy to significantly contain the litigation by the end of 2026

Leverkusen, June 30, 2025 – The U.S. Supreme Court today asked the Solicitor General to provide the Court with the views of the U.S. government in the Durnell case, following a petition for a writ of certiorari by Bayer’s indirect subsidiary Monsanto in April 2025.

“We see this request as an encouraging step and look forward to hearing the views of the government on FIFRA’s federal preemption provision, which relies on language common to several federal laws that cover a number of industries,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. “The security and affordability of the food supply depend on companies’ and farmers’ ability to rely on decisions made by responsible federal regulatory authorities. When courts permit companies to be punished under state law for following federal law, it makes companies like ours a prime target of the litigation industry and threatens farmers and innovations that patients and consumers need for their nutrition and health.”

In its petition, the company argues that a split among federal circuit courts in the Roundup™ litigation warrants review and resolution by the country’s top court. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held in the Schaffner case that the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIRFA) expressly preempted the plaintiff’s state claims based on failure-to-warn theories. The 9th and 11th Circuits and Missouri’s intermediate appellate court in Durnell have reached different conclusions on the preemption question and the petition argues that both state and federal courts require guidance that only the U.S. Supreme Court can provide. Durnell is the first case for which Monsanto has sought Supreme Court review since the Schaffner decision created a split among the federal circuit courts. 

Once the Solicitor General provides its views, the Supreme Court will then make a decision on the company’s petition during the 2025-2026 Court session. If the Court accepts the case, a decision on the merits could still happen during the Court’s next session which ends in June 2026. A positive ruling on the central, cross-cutting issue in the Roundup™ litigation – whether federal law preempts claims based on state failure-to-warn theories – could help to largely contain this litigation.

In the past weeks, 18 organizations and coalitions, representing agriculture, legal thought leaders, U.S. manufacturers, scientific communities, and a broad swath of business leaders from across the nation, filed amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to grant Monsanto's petition. The Chamber of Commerce wrote: “The stakes of this case, and others like it, are enormous … [I]f federal preemption is discarded in cases like this one, manufacturers will routinely face potentially crushing liability under state law for failing to give warnings that federal law forbids.”  

Several grower groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation wrote in their amici briefs: “Put simply, America’s agricultural industry could not operate without glyphosate ... Immediate devastation will occur for agricultural operations and American food supply.” 

“The litigation industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars targeting Monsanto for not providing warnings they allege are required under state law, even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and every other health regulator worldwide that has assessed the safety of glyphosate has found that it is safe to use and does not cause cancer,” Anderson said.

Bayer remains committed to significantly containing the U.S. litigation by the end of 2026. To achieve this goal, the company will continue its multipronged strategy. The company supports regulatory measures that would reinforce the preemptive effect of the EPA’s human health assessments and approved labeling for products registered under FIFRA). FIFRA already prohibits states from imposing ‘any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from’ those required under federal law. The company supports a petition filed by 11 state Attorneys General calling on the agency to strengthen its regulations and specify that state labeling requirements, which are different than those determined by the EPA, would render the product misbranded. This petition, which received broad industry support, is now under consideration by the EPA.

Building off the efforts of elected officials and farmers in Georgia and North Dakota, the company will continue to work with state and federal legislators, along with more than 360 grower and industry groups, to reinforce that compliance with federal labels is sufficient to meet state warning requirements, consistent with the uniformity provision of FIFRA.

The company has obtained favorable outcomes in 17 of the last 25 trials and will continue to try cases based on the overwhelming scientific support for glyphosate’s safety. It will also consider resolving claims by settlements if the terms are in Monsanto’s strategic interest.

Additional options under consideration include state and federal executive branch actions consistent with current FIFRA policy on preemption, and limiting or ending the sale of glyphosate-based products. Lastly, the company continues to assess other options that would help protect the company and its other products from the financial threats posed by the litigation industry and its ceaseless attacks on glyphosate-based products. 

In October 2023, Durnell was tried in Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury found the company failed to warn of the product’s risk and awarded 1.25 million U.S. dollar to the plaintiff, but it rejected all other claims and declined to award punitive damages. The company appealed the verdict in August 2024 and the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District upheld the verdict in February 2025. Monsanto promptly filed a writ to transfer the case to the Missouri Supreme Court, and it declined review on April 1, making it ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review. 

About Bayer
Bayer is a global enterprise with core competencies in the life science fields of health care and nutrition. In line with its mission, “Health for all, Hunger for none,” the company’s products and services are designed to help people and the planet thrive by supporting efforts to master the major challenges presented by a growing and aging global population. Bayer is committed to driving sustainable development and generating a positive impact with its businesses. At the same time, the Group aims to increase its earning power and create value through innovation and growth. The Bayer brand stands for trust, reliability and quality throughout the world. In fiscal 2024, the Group employed around 93,000 people and had sales of 46.6 billion euros. R&D expenses amounted to 6.2 billion euros. For more information, go to www.bayer.com.

Contact for media inquiries:
Brian Leake, phone +1 314.370.3285
Email: brian.leake@bayer.com

Philipp Blank, phone +49 214 30-20499
Email: philipp.blank@bayer.com

Christian Hartel, phone +49 214 30-47686
Email: christian.hartel@bayer.com

Contact for investor inquiries:
Bayer Investor Relations Team, phone +49 214 30-72704
Email: ir@bayer.com 
www.bayer.com/en/investors/ir-team

pb	(2025-0125E)

Forward-Looking Statements 
This release may contain forward-looking statements based on current assumptions and forecasts made by Bayer management. Various known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors could lead to material differences between the actual future results, financial situation, development or performance of the company and the estimates given here. These factors include those discussed in Bayer’s public reports which are available on the Bayer website at www.bayer.com. The company assumes no liability whatsoever to update these forward-looking statements or to conform them to future events or developments. 

Bayer AG is a holding company with operating subsidiaries worldwide.  References to “Bayer” or “the company” herein may refer to one or more subsidiaries as context requires.