The Supreme Court on Monday will hear oral arguments in Monsanto Company. v. Durnell, a case that could weaken the ability of consumers to sue companies failing to warn of cancer risks from glyphosate. The issue is “whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.” John Durnell became one of tens of thousands of Americans to sue Monsanto, the maker of weedkiller Roundup, after he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Durnell used Roundup for over two decades near his St. Louis home. In 2023, a jury agreed with Durnell that the weedkiller caused his diagnosis and said Monsanto owed him $1.25 million. “Thousands of others across the country, including Durnell, have sued Roundup’s manufacturer, Monsanto, claiming the company failed to warn consumers that exposure to its glyphosate-based herbicides could cause them to develop cancer,” The Epoch Times wrote. Like countless homeowners, John Durnell of Missouri used a popular herbicide to keep his home and community free from unwanted weeds. He used the chemical from the 1990s until 2018, when he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a diagnosis he blames on an ingredient known as… pic.twitter.com/RbuVIMtYll — The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) April 26, 2026 More from USA TODAY: The company faces billions of dollars in potential liability and has said it may have to stop selling glyphosate to U.S. farmers if the lawsuits continue, a scenario major agricultural groups say would pose a “devastating risk to America’s food supply.” Public health groups say the lawsuits are needed because the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to protect Americans from risks associated with glyphosate. U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who sued Monsanto over Roundup when he was a practicing lawyer, cofounded one of the groups that filed a brief supporting Durnell. Yet in a move that has alarmed the Make America Healthy Again crowd (who want a more organic lifestyle and distrust pharmaceutical companies), the Trump administration is backing the company. And that’s not all. President Donald Trump has also pushed to spur domestic production of glyphosate and to protect manufacturers from liability, saying there’s no comparable alternative. The fight is playing out as a proposed $7.25 billion class action settlement with the company that could resolve many of the lawsuits. The uncertainty over how the Supreme Court will rule could be an extra inducement for people suing Monsanto to accept the pending deal, which is not dependent on the outcome of the case. “I don’t trust the Supreme Court in this situation,” said Howard Kornblue, another former Roundup user with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. “The possibility of coming away with zero (compensation) is not good.” Advocacy groups gathered at the Supreme Court for ‘The People vs. Poison’ rally, which featured several guest speakers. “Thousands gather for The People vs. Poison rally as the Court weighs whether pesticide makers can avoid lawsuits over glyphosate harms tied to Monsanto’s Roundup,” The HighWire wrote. Watch below: LIVE from the Supreme Court: Thousands gather for The People vs. Poison rally as the Court weighs whether pesticide makers can avoid lawsuits over glyphosate harms tied to Monsanto’s Roundup. Watch live at https://t.co/paGr52dhkg https://t.co/MQneTyx2VE — The HighWire (@HighWireTalk) April 27, 2026 The Guardian shared further: Bayer has said a favorable supreme court ruling will help it put an end to the litigation. Backing Monsanto’s case is Syngenta, a Chinese-owned company that is similarly being sued by thousands of people around the US who allege the company failed to warn them of research linking Syngenta’s paraquat herbicide products to Parkinson’s disease. In addition to Monsanto and Syngenta, future cases against other pesticide makers could similarly be limited, according to legal experts. Lawrence Ebner, general counsel for the Atlantic Legal Foundation, which is backing Monsanto, said in a briefing ahead of the court hearing that consumers could be misled by unneeded warnings. “If you have a pesticide label with a zillion different warnings, how is the user supposed to know the ones that really matter, the ones that EPA really has … determined are necessary?” he said. In contrast, Jim Jones, who served as assistant administrator for EPA’s office of chemical safety and pollution prevention under Barack Obama, said in an interview that states play an important and complementary role in regulating pesticides and determining what types of warnings are warranted. “It’s the perspective I’ve held throughout my career at EPA. I think it is the correct one.” Jones is among a group of former EPA officials who filed an amicus brief arguing against Monsanto’s position.