Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said on Wednesday that the Trump administration, in a new amicus brief, is “urging SCOTUS to side with German pesticide company Bayer in a case that could eliminate every American’s right to sue if harmed by glyphosate (Round-Up).” “But I’m still MAHA & pro Constitution. What about you?” he added. In a new Amicus brief, the administration is urging SCOTUS to side with German pesticide company Bayer in a case that could eliminate every American’s right to sue if harmed by glyphosate (Round-Up). But I’m still MAHA & pro Constitution.What about you?https://t.co/PfInJOzt34 — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 4, 2026 Underneath “Interest of the United States,” the amicus brief states: “This case concerns whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., preempts respondent’s Missouri-law failure-to warn claim challenging the labeling of petitioner’s Roundup products between 1996 and 2018. The United States, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), implements and enforces FIFRA. See 7 U.S.C. 136w. EPA previously reviewed and approved the specific labeling here after confirming that Roundup’s active ingredient does not pose an ‘unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits’ and that Roundup does ‘not significantly increase’ that risk. 7 U.S.C. 136(bb), 136a(c)(5)(D) and (7)(A). At the Court’s invitation, the United States filed an amicus brief at the petition stage of this case.” U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a nonprofit newsroom and public health research group, said the administration sided with the German pesticide company in a “high-stakes legal case that could wipe out thousands of cancer lawsuits and potentially billions of dollars in liability tied to glyphosate-based Roundup weed killer.” More from USRTK: Three out of nine U.S. officials who signed the brief previously worked for law firms that have represented Bayer, raising questions about whether the Trump administration is providing special favors and benefits to Bayer and siding with a foreign corporation against Americans with cancer. The brief is the second Justice Department intervention in the case. In December, the DOJ asked the Court to review Bayer’s case. The court accepted the case in January and oral arguments are scheduled for April 27. In the new filing, the Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency urged the Court to rule in Bayer’s favor on the central legal issue: whether federal approval of a pesticide label under federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims. If the Court accepts that argument, individuals would be barred from suing Bayer under state law for failing to warn that Roundup may cause cancer. The salvo for Bayer is the latest in a series of favorable actions the Trump administration has provided to Bayer. On February 18, the White House invoked the Defense Production Act to guarantee supplies of glyphosate-based herbicides and elemental phosphorus, a raw element used in production of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and a wide range of industrial and military chemicals. Regulators also reapproved dicamba, a Bayer herbicide twice blocked by federal courts, and cleared the way for new pesticides containing toxic, persistent PFAS “forever” chemicals. We reviewed the company’s ties to the Trump administration and found numerous connections between Bayer’s lobby and legal firms and senior officials in decision-making positions affecting pesticides regulations, chemical safety, and how our nation’s food system is shaped. The new Supreme Court filing adds more Bayer ties. “Americans need to know: our government is under siege by lobbyists from German company Bayer,” Massie said last month. “Bayer has spent over $9 million lobbying for exemption from liability for harm its chemicals like glyphosate might cause. The Constitution guarantees a trial for those who are harmed,” he added. “The attorney general has opined favorably for this German company in front of the Supreme Court about getting rid of any liability that they should have for any damages,” Massie said on the House floor. Watch below: Americans need to know: our government is under siege by lobbyists from German company Bayer. Bayer has spent over $9 million lobbying for exemption from liability for harm its chemicals like glyphosate might cause. The Constitution guarantees a trial for those who are harmed. pic.twitter.com/omYHjjW40T — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 24, 2026 “Bayer is pleased the Solicitor General supports U. S. Supreme Court review of the petition for a writ of certiorari in the Durnell case and agrees with the company’s arguments on preemption. The company believes that the backing of the U.S. government will be important to the Court’s consideration of its petition. The split among federal circuit courts in the Roundup personal injury litigation, on the cross-cutting question of whether federal law preempts state claims based on failure-to-warn theories, warrants review and resolution by the country’s top court,” Bayer wrote in December. “The support of the U.S. Government is an important step and good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity. The stakes could not be higher as the misapplication of federal law jeopardizes the availability of innovative tools for farmers and investments in the broader U.S. economy”, said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. “Why has @AGPamBondi‘s Solicitor General sided w/ German co. Bayer which sells Roundup?” Massie questioned in January. Removal of Section 453, immunity for pesticides, was a victory that might be temporary. Friday SCOTUS will decide whether to hear the Roundup (glyphosate) cancer case. Why has @AGPamBondi‘s Solicitor General sided w/ German co. Bayer which sells Roundup?https://t.co/bbggRLVnqE — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 8, 2026 Bayer wrote: Similar preemption language to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is included in other federal statutes such as those regulating medical devices, poultry products, meat, and motor vehicles. It is time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies cannot be punished under state laws for complying with federal label requirements. As part of the company’s multi-pronged strategy, a positive ruling on the central, cross-cutting preemption issue could help bring the company closer to closure of tens of thousands of Roundup cases, which are overwhelmingly based on claims grounded in failure-to-warn theories. The EPA and every other regulator worldwide that has independently assessed the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in most Roundup products, has concluded it can be used safely. According to USRTK, Deputy Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Aaron Z. Roper, and Robert N. Stander, deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, all previously worked for law firms that have represented Bayer. “Representative Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning lawmaker from Kentucky, asked Thursday, on social media, Why has the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, sided with the German company Bayer?” [to give them immunity from lawsuits]https://t.co/840PEQSRIF — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 9, 2026 The Hill reported in January: The Supreme Court on Friday took up a bid from Bayer to limit liability for pesticide makers, including Bayer’s Roundup weed killer, which has become the subject of numerous cancer suits. The court said it would take up the company’s petition, which was backed by the Trump administration. It said it would only evaluate the question of whether individuals can pursue failure-to-warn claims if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not require a pesticide company to label its product with a given health impact. The specific case at issue is a claim from Missouri under whose failure-to-warn law cancer patient John Durnell was awarded $1.25 million. Bayer has argued that it should not have had to disclose Roundup’s alleged carcinogenic effects since the EPA approved the pesticide, saying in 2020 that there’s “insufficient evidence to conclude that glyphosate plays a role in any human diseases.” Durnell’s lawyers argued that his case goes beyond the pesticide’s label, coming as a result of “off-label conduct like Monsanto’s failure to warn of Roundup’s dangers in advertisements on which Durnell relied.” Taking up the case is not a guarantee that the Supreme Court will rule in the company’s favor. The impacts of whatever decision it makes could be far-reaching. According to its court brief, Monsanto, which is owned by Bayer, faces 100,000 similar suits. The company celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case. Read the full amicus brief filed by the administration HERE.