Kentucky overrides Beshear on Roundup warning lawsuits as Supreme Court nears
Kentucky Republicans in the state Legislature overrode Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto on a law intended to limit lawsuits alleging Bayer and other defendants failed to warn customers that the weedkiller Roundup could cause cancer. The override on Wednesday took place just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments April 27 in a Missouri case that could shape how broadly similar failure-to-warn claims may proceed nationwide.
The dispute has grown into a broader legal and financial challenge for Bayer, which acquired Monsanto—the company that introduced Roundup—in 2018. The Roundup product uses glyphosate as its active ingredient, and plaintiffs’ claims in the mass litigation have focused on alleged inadequacies in warnings provided to consumers rather than on any single method of use.
At the center of most lawsuits is the argument that Roundup’s manufacturer did not adequately warn customers about the potential link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer type identified in the claims. Bayer disputes the cancer-causing assertions, and the company has argued that the legal costs threaten its ability to keep selling glyphosate-based products in the U.S. agricultural market. Bayer has also said it removed glyphosate from newer Roundup versions for residential markets.
In the Roundup litigation, federal regulators and state law interact in a way that affects the range of claims plaintiffs can bring. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has said it is not likely that glyphosate is carcinogenic to humans when used as directed, and the Roundup label approved for use includes no warning of cancer.
The newly enacted Kentucky approach targets that “failure-to-warn” theory. The law reflects a broader push by a coalition of agricultural organizations known as the Modern Ag Alliance, which has backed similar bills in multiple states. The bills generally declare that a pesticide label approved under federal law is sufficient to satisfy a duty under state law to warn customers.
Modern Ag Alliance executive director Elizabeth Burns-Thompson said the Kentucky law would help farmers plan for the future and keep operations profitable. Beshear argued in his veto message that the measure would allow dangerous pesticides to be sold without labels warning of the risks of using them, and he also said the action “flies in the face of making America healthy.” He pointed out that many other consumer products, including cosmetics, personal hygiene items, and household cleaners, already carry warning labels.
In parallel with the state legislative action, a Missouri lawsuit has drawn attention because it is expected to address whether federal pesticide laws “preempt”—or block—state failure-to-warn claims. In the Missouri case, the court was considering an award of $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis, with jurors finding Monsanto liable for failing to warn of the risk.
Bayer has argued that federal law prevents states from requiring additional labeling beyond what federal regulators already require, contending that those failure-to-warn lawsuits should not be allowed to proceed. Trump’s administration sided with Bayer in that argument, reversing the position of the former Biden administration and setting up a split that also touches supporters of the Make America Healthy Again movement.
A number of parties filed briefs seeking to influence the Supreme Court outcome, including agricultural groups, business associations, health care organizations, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and state elected officials, with about 30 briefs filed urging rulings for or against Bayer’s federal-protection argument. Among those filings were briefs from a group of former EPA officials who said state lawsuits should proceed, arguing that Roundup’s maker never proposed that the EPA include a cancer warning on labels and that the lack of such labeling “cannot be understood as an implicit rejection of such a warning,” according to their court filing.
While the Supreme Court case proceeds toward a possible ruling on federal preemption, other litigation developments continue at the state level. A St. Louis Circuit Court judge gave preliminary approval last month to a proposed settlement intended to resolve most pending and future failure-to-warn claims involving Roundup, starting a notification and opt-out period that runs until June 4.
The proposed deal would have Bayer make annual payments into a special fund for up to 21 years, totaling as much as $7.25 billion, according to the court-approved terms described in the reporting. The amount paid to individuals would vary based on how they used Roundup, how old they were when diagnosed, and the severity of their non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with the reporting describing average payments tied to certain exposure and age scenarios, including workers exposed for long periods and diagnosed with aggressive forms, and older individuals diagnosed at age 78 or older.
What the settlement and the Supreme Court case could mean next
Even as the Supreme Court case could affect the future of failure-to-warn litigation, the proposed settlement is structured to reduce some uncertainty by assuring participating patients that they would receive money even if the Supreme Court rules in Bayer’s favor. The settlement also aims to limit Bayer’s exposure to potentially larger costs if the high court rules against the company.
The Kentucky override adds another layer to a legal landscape in which states have moved to adopt labeling shields while federal courts decide whether those shields can control failure-to-warn claims. The reporting noted that North Dakota and Georgia had enacted similar legal protections last year, and Kentucky became the third state after lawmakers overrode Beshear.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the Missouri preemption arguments on April 27, the legal system is weighing whether federal pesticide labeling rules can foreclose state-level claims—and, meanwhile, Bayer is pursuing court approval for a settlement that could resolve large numbers of claims in the event that plaintiffs choose to opt in.