Roundup Lawsuit Settlement: What the Courts Have Decided, Including the Supreme Court
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a Roundup cancer case, and held that federal pesticide law preempts the plaintiff's claim that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on Roundup's label. This page quotes that ruling, the question the Court agreed to decide, and the dissent, and what the federal courts have said in the Roundup multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 2741, where the Panel's report of October 1, 2026 lists 1,104 actions pending.
It states no settlement amount: no document read for this page states a settlement of Roundup claims.
Check a kind of claim against what the Supreme Court decided
Pick the kind of claim to see what the Supreme Court's opinion in Durnell says about it, in the Court's own words, or that the opinion does not discuss it. Then add up the costs you can document.
Choose a kind of claim to see what the Supreme Court's opinion says about it.
Add up your documented costs
Enter what you can show with bills, pay records or receipts. The total is only the sum of what you enter.
Dollars, with or without commas or a dollar sign. Leave a field blank if it does not apply.
This is not an estimate of a claim or a settlement. It adds no pain and suffering, takes out no fees or liens, and says nothing about what any Roundup claim could be worth. It is the total of your own figures, to bring to a lawyer.
The Supreme Court's ruling
The Supreme Court decided Monsanto Co. v. Durnell on June 25, 2026. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan and Barrett. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch.
The question it agreed to decide: “Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.” (Supreme Court of the United States, Docket No. 24-1068 (read Oct. 6, 2026))
The case came from a Missouri state court. In the Court's words: “Durnell alleged that he had used Monsanto's Roundup products for about 20 years and that they had caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer.” (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371, 381 (2026)) And: “A jury agreed and awarded Durnell more than $1 million on the failure-to-warn theory. In Missouri trial court, Monsanto moved on preemption grounds for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371, 382 (2026))
The Court described the claim this way: “Durnell's failure-to-warn claim, meanwhile, would require Monsanto to place a cancer warning on Roundup's label.” (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371, 387 (2026)) It held: “Durnell's failure-to-warn claim is expressly preempted.” (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371, 388 (2026)) And it ruled: “We reverse the judgment of the Missouri Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371, 395 (2026))
Why the Court said the label decides it
The Court's reasoning turns on the label EPA approved: “Therefore, as a matter of federal law, Monsanto legally must use a label without a cancer warning unless and until EPA approves or requires a change.” (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371, 381 (2026))
It added: “It is true that EPA may subsequently change course in light of new information or new analysis, and require an amended label and amended registration.” (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371, 384 (2026))
And it decided the case on express preemption alone: “Because we conclude that Durnell's failure-to-warn claim is expressly preempted, we need not consider Monsanto's implied preemption argument.” (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371, 388 (2026) n.7)
The opinion does not discuss a design-defect, negligence or warranty claim. This page read no ruling on how the decision applies to those claims, or to any case in the MDL.
What the dissent said
Justice Jackson, dissenting: “In so holding, the Court departs from the near-unanimous view of the many state and federal courts that have rejected this preemption argument.” (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371, 399 (2026) (Jackson, J., dissenting))
The dissent's reading of the statute: “FIFRA expressly limits States' authority to regulate pesticide labels, but it does not eliminate that authority.” (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 609 U.S. 371, 401 (2026) (Jackson, J., dissenting))
A dissent is not the law of the case. It is quoted here so the reader sees the disagreement in the Justices' own words.
Where the federal cases are
In the Ninth Circuit's words: “The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated those cases for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California.” (Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., No. 19-16636, slip op. at 13 (9th Cir. May 14, 2021)) The MDL is No. 2741, before Judge Vince Chhabria, master docket 3:16-md-2741.
The Panel's report of October 1, 2026 lists 1,104 actions now pending in it, and 5,324 in total since it began. The figures are the report's, as of its date, and this page prints them with that date.
An MDL gathers cases for pretrial proceedings, as the words quoted above say. Nothing on this page is a way to file a case or to take part in one.
The first federal bellwether trial
The Ninth Circuit decided the appeal on May 14, 2021: “This appeal arises out of the first bellwether trial for the federal cases consolidated in a multidistrict litigation.” (Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., No. 19-16636, slip op. at 7 (9th Cir. May 14, 2021))
“The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman, awarding him $5,267,634.10 in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages.” (Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., No. 19-16636, slip op. at 7 (9th Cir. May 14, 2021)) “The district court reduced the jury’s punitive damages award to $20 million.” (Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., No. 19-16636, slip op. at 7 (9th Cir. May 14, 2021))
On the law, it held: “We affirm the district court and hold that (1) Hardeman’s state failure-to-warn claims are not preempted by FIFRA” (Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., No. 19-16636, slip op. at 7 (9th Cir. May 14, 2021)). That holding on preemption came before the Supreme Court's ruling in Durnell, which decided the question the other way for Durnell's claim.
Roundup lawsuit settlement: what this page can and cannot say
No document read for this page states a settlement of Roundup claims, its terms or its amounts, so this page states none and does not estimate one.
The figures quoted on this page are juries' verdicts in two cases, as the courts describe them. They are not settlement figures, they are not what any other claim is worth, and in Durnell the Supreme Court reversed the judgment.
What the checker above does is add up the costs you can document, so you have one figure to bring to a lawyer. It is the sum of what you enter and nothing else.
Filing periods
No document read for this page says which state's filing period applies to a Roundup claim, or when its clock starts, so this page counts no deadline.
The product liability calculator on this site quotes each state's period and repose for a product claim from its code. A lawyer can say which applies to your claim, and whether a rule on when an illness was discovered changes it.
Talking to a lawyer about your claim
This site is not a law firm, does not refer anyone to a lawyer, and cannot say what a lawyer would recover. The questions that decide a claim after Durnell are ones a lawyer answers: what kind of claim yours is, what the Supreme Court's ruling means for it, which state's law applies, and the filing period.
Bring the record of the diagnosis with its date, records of where and how long you used the product, your record of costs, and the rulings this page quotes.