Supreme Court Gives Pesticide Corporations Immunity from Cancer Lawsuits
foodandwaterwatch.orgTitle is misleading. The case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Durnell, and Wikipedia's summary is:
>The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Actpreempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA.
In other words, they don't have immunity from cancer lawsuits. They have immunity from cancer lawsuits stemming from being noncompliant with state labeling laws.
The best kind of correct.
> In a 7-2 decision issued in June 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bayer and Mosanto, ruling that the Montana state law cannot coerce the labeling of Roundup as containing carcinogens since federal regulators have not identified a connection. The ruling overturned a prior jury award and is expected to end most other ongoing litigation over Roundup.
Another anti-states right ruling that will be championed by the states rights crowd. As long as it’s in corporate interests, states have no rights.
Editorialized title.
Actual ruling seems reasonable from a legal perspective. It is the EPA's job to determine if a chemical is safe. If they say it is, why is it the court's job to say otherwise?
Absolute disgrace.
The people who put shit like this out, referring to the Supreme Court as the "Trump administration" siding with Bayer in favor of cancer and poison, think you are too stupid to find that "Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Jackson, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined."
Most Americans do not understand the constitutional role of the judicial branch, and rhetoric like this exploits that in ways that are really bad for the integrity of our government and political discourse.
Supreme Court opinions are public and generally comprehensible by an average citizen. Please take even the tiniest amount of effort to understand how our government process works before buying into flamebait from media orgs and NGOs that profit from your ignorance. And if you have a problem with our laws, it's usually best to blame the lawmakers first.
Counterpoint: SCOTUS has been shockingly willing to side with the Executive branch, and the Legislative branch's Republican majority has shown it is willing to fellate the POTUS at every instance.
Our so-called balance of powers does not currently exist in practice.
That being said, this ruling is, as another poster pointed out, confirmation of the supremacy of federal regulations over state law.
Do you seriously believe that the EPA is deferential to the current Republican coalition, and that it has been over the past few decades when it was asked to reconsider glyphosate multiple times? The IARC reclassification that kicked off these Roundup lawsuits was in 2015.
Would you prefer to live in a country where the Supreme Court was ruling against federal regulatory agencies and in favor of one off state laws? I think you'd find some uneasy political bedfellows.
...Health Insurance industry celebrates long term reliance goals.