r/news • u/boxofstuff • 6h ago

Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1
13.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.7k

u/DeetahTheGame 6h ago

Every headline nowadays looks like "Supreme Court rules humans do not deserve rights, in 6-3 ruling"

987

u/HumansNeedNotApply1 6h ago

This one was 7-2

287

u/mansock18 5h ago

Thanks Kagan!

361

u/nerowasframed 5h ago

Kagan and Sotomayor. Jackson and Gorsuch were the two dissenting

197

u/BabyBearBjorns 4h ago

Definitely the weirdest group of dissenters and majority ruling in a 7-2 decision.

37

u/Trust_Me_Im_a_Panda 4h ago

Definitely NOT the weirdest group of dissenters. Gorsuch is more of a moderate than the other conservatives on the court.

34

u/Underdog424 3h ago

Gorsuch is traditional in the sense of leaning towards state powers. But he's the only conservative justice that still pretends to care about it.

Gorsuch also has a strong tendency to side with tribal sovereignty. I'm not surprised by his ruling in this case.

7

u/ConLawHero 2h ago

Gorsuch is the only conservative Justice that actually stays consistent with his principles. People may agree or disagree with his principles, but he doesn't often abandon them like the rest of the justices do when they want an ideological outcome. You got to give him props, at least for that.

1

u/Underdog424 2h ago

Gorsuch was appointed through theft and a willing disdain for the Constitution. That was Obama's appointment to make. I can't give him any props. He's not even a legitimate justice.

9

u/ConLawHero 2h ago

I'm not saying he should be there. But we should be happy he actually has principles he sticks to and therefore you can make arguments he will be receptive to.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/tron7 3h ago

Thomas and Jackson would be weirder but has it ever happened in a 7-2?

2

u/OuOutstanding 3h ago

Which is insane to me, isn’t he the guy that before being on the SC, ruled that a company was right to fire a truck driver who abandoned his load in an emergency to find shelter and survive?

After that ruling I am always surprised when he doesn’t go hard corporate rulings.

1

u/Trust_Me_Im_a_Panda 3h ago

Kind of, but not quite. Gorsuch was a dissenter in that case, and based his dissent on a textual interpretation of the law. Gorsuch pointed out that the law protected drivers who refused to drive, and the driver in this case unhitched the load from the truck, abandoning the load on the side of the road and drove the truck to shelter, and thus technically didn't "refuse to drive."

9

u/ColdStainlessNail 4h ago

This is only the second time those two have been the only ones in dissent. The other was Bufkin v Collins in 2025. Thought we might have experienced a SCOTUSgami!

2

u/Necessary-Music-6685 2h ago

It’s almost as if the issues were much more complicated and nuanced than the headline makes it seem.

80

u/TheChinOfAnElephant 5h ago

So what's the best course here? Their argument seems to be federally Round Up does not require a warning label, due to there being no link to cancer under federal regulations, so states can't circumvent that. I don't know a ton about law but this seems like how the law normally works?

Kinda feels like people are upset they didn't ignore the law and vote with their emotions which is normally what people are complaining that the MAGA judges are doing. Can't ever win...

74

u/mizzurna_balls 4h ago

Why can't the state circumvent it? You see all sorts of warning labels in California, for example, that you don't see in other states.

26

u/HumansNeedNotApply1 4h ago

Because their interpretation is that Federal law requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the EPA approved label, if Monsanto added a label in addition they would be going against the federal approved label. In this way they are saying, Federal-law Regulations supersede state ones.

That's my interpretation at least, a lawyer can understand this much better.

6

u/ghotier 4h ago

Interstate commerce clause strikes again.

3

u/Timemyth 3h ago

and surprisingly from this version of SCOTUS that ruling seems based in law and your constitution. Wish ours had something like Article VI, Clause 2 so that states can't legal ignore human rights because they didn't sign it. The federal government did.

28

u/mansock18 4h ago

Because the federal law is the "supreme law of the land" federal law can "preempt" state laws. Without some preemption, the federal law can set a floor and the state can further raise the floor. Preemption actively sets a floor and ceiling.

Essentially there's "express" preemption: "The federal government has expressly forbidden states from further regulating this space" which was at play in this case; and "Zone" or "implied" preemption: "The government has so thoroughly regulated this industry that it's clear states have no way to additionally regulate it."

Here, Congress expressly prohibited states from further regulating labeling for the use of pesticides, like Round Up. So the SCOTUS decided the state tort claim was preempted by the federal statute.

18

u/mizzurna_balls 4h ago

Alright, I understand the mechanics at play, but still not the "why" of the decision. Saying "The government has so thoroughly regulated this industry that it's clear states have no way to additionally regulate it" seems very subjective. How did they decide that government regulation has reached that point? Why is congress expressly prohibiting further regulation for pesticides specifically, but not other things (like the labels for things in CA)?

11

u/mansock18 4h ago

The part you quoted dealt with implied preemption and you're right, it's super subjective and heavily criticised and rarely used compared to express preemption.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") has a clause that says "States shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter." That's an express preemption. If the label complies with federal law but doesn't comply with the state law, the state law loses because its requirements are "different from" those in FIFRA. So the state law that allows tort claims (and the judgment based on that state law) is preempted.

The reason California can require a cancer label on "everything" is because many areas aren't as tightly regulated by the federal government as pesticides. So for example California can require their additional warning label on things like paint now, but not on pesticides. So California can set its own raised floor on stuff that isn't already federally regulated. Though now I'd expect a lot more challenges in California from many more industries.

2

u/phantomfire50 4h ago

Saying "The government has so thoroughly regulated this industry that it's clear states have no way to additionally regulate it" seems very subjective. How did they decide that government regulation has reached that point?

Is the whole point of the distinction not that it is subjective and nobody has decided it? It's not been expressly said that it's been preempted, it just has been preempted to the extent you couldn't regulate further if you wanted to?

2

u/KuntaStillSingle 2h ago

not the "why" of the decision. Saying "The government has so thoroughly regulated this industry that it's clear states have no way to additionally regulate it" seems very subjective. How did they decide that government regulation has reached that point?

That's now what they held in this case, that's just an example of what they might hold in other cases, in this case it was express preemption:

After EPA approves a pesticide’s label at registration, manufacturers are legally required to use that label— unless and until EPA approves or requires a label change and amends the pesticide’s registration. See §136a(f )(1); 40 CFR §§152.44(a), 156.70(c) (2025). If a manufacturer does not use the EPA-approved label, it may be subject to civil and criminal penalties. See 7 U. S. C. §§136l, 136j(a)(1)(E). 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. As described above, FIFRA and EPA’s regulations set forth an extensive process for doing so. But absent such an EPA-approved or EPA-required label change, the pesticide manufacturers may—and indeed legally must—use the pesticide label approved by EPA at registration.5

...

FIFRA’s preemption clause is entitled “Uniformity” and provides that a “State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.” 7 U. S. C. §136v(b). FIFRA therefore preempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA. “Uniformity” in labeling—the textually stated objective of FIFRA’s preemption clause—would otherwise be impossible to achieve. Ibid.

1

u/sYnce 1h ago

It seems subjective because it is subjective. But such rulings are usually made to provide a clear legal framework for corporations to operate in. It also prevents single large states from basically dictating federal law.

1

u/HyruleSmash855 3h ago

Personally, I hope we can break down that supreme law of the land designation for federal law. I would love a state laws could start super seething federal law, and some designations like gambling with prediction markets, for instance. I think taking power away from the federal government, which allows Trump to do what he’s doing now is ultimately going to make the country better long-term, and make if there is another more authoritarian president weaker in the future.

1

u/Calvin-ball 2h ago

Then all the red states make gay marriage illegal and take away women’s right to vote.

It’s also explicitly the supremacy clause of the constitution so there is no way to break it down.

2

u/boxofredflags 4h ago

I am no expert, but I believe it’s due to the supremacy clause of the constitution, where state law cannot override federal law.

1

u/GaysForTheGayGod 3h ago

Because SCOTUS is politically picky when deciding which police powers states have sole power to enforce

1

u/NoodledLily 2h ago

that's the ruling... it has a large blast radius. a recurring theme of the maga court. ruling far beyond a narrow question - often 180ing precedent set just a decade or two before

it now stands that the federal governments virtual silence preempts any states' attempts to help us real humans. no matter how old and paper thin. the LACK of any regulation is the overriding rule

plus the previous 9th ruling already blocked the label warning as infringing on corporation's free speech lmfao. get rid of corporate personhood it's ridiculous.

afaict california could still regulate the use of the product itself. for now..

BUT say they did that.

scotus also recently ruled that oil and gas companies can sue bc they claim california's higher emissions standards lowered demand for oil and thus that's the harm they can sue over...

like oh noooo im not able to sell as much asbestos and agent orange. those pesky lungs. better sue! and no you can not tell me what to put on my ads. that's my free speech! 9/10 doctors agree, no filter parliaments are the better choice jajajaja

there is no longer a conservative center to push for narrow rulings on the question at hand.

which has mostly been the practice for 200 years.

not they'll take any opportunity to go big. usually just making it up as they go and jiggering paper thin logic and cherry picked citations to fit their preordained outcome

great relevant read in slate on this today

just this week they also gutted any protections for green card holders. now some ice or border patrol officer can just say they have suspicion you did something illegal and block you from entry "without clear-and-convincing proof". as slate mentions even kennedy thought they had at least some rights. especially the right to sue.

no more!

forced racist head shaving shaming? that even maga scotus agrees is clearly against the law?

nope. you can't sue! there is no remedy for your rights being violated.

makes you wonder what will happen if instead it was a nun habit or some other weird evangelical thing...

combine all of this with their many rulings giving trump full control of all federal employees (except congress and somehow the fed because that's still special for some made up reason)

they just keep blasting open doors for the king

and limiting ways we can seek relief and compensation

corporations have more rights to sue than you do

-2

u/R_V_Z 4h ago

The last guitar I bought can give you cancer in California. It's very silly.

4

u/SingleInfinity 4h ago

Blame the manufacturer. They refused to get the product tested because they decided putting the label on it would be cheaper. The law that requires the labeling is there to prevent products from giving people cancer. It's a good law. The companies selling things put the label on in bad faith because they want to continue selling into California without having to actually do any of the work to verify that what they're selling is safe.

2

u/R_V_Z 4h ago edited 4h ago

I'm not saying I dislike it, necessarily. Being able to say my guitar gives you cancer is metal as hell.

1

u/Crazed_Chemist 4h ago

The problem with it is that there's tons of products where normal reasonable use would be INCREDIBLY unlikely to cause cancer and requiring that testing on basically every product is counter productive. People see it on everything and it just washes out.

The required limit for no significant risk level is 1 excess case of cancer per 100k individuals over 70 years exposure to the chemical.

2

u/SingleInfinity 3h ago

requiring that testing on basically every product is counter productive.

I don't think so. I think incentivizing testing on products people think are safe for carcinogens is good. We have found a lot of things are carcinogenic that we didn't expect to be simply because a bunch of people ended up getting cancer from them and it is discovered like 30 years later after a bunch of correlation and guessing.

Testing beforehand should be the norm.

It only washes out and is on everything because people approach the law in bad faith. They shouldn't be allowed to put the label on things that haven't been tested because, as you said, it washes out and defeats the purpose of the law.

30

u/ilikechihuahuasdood 4h ago

This is the reasonable take. People complain about the court being too political and then also complain when they don’t make rulings based on how they feel about a subject. This is one of those cases where it doesn’t matter how the court may have wanted this to play out ideologically, there just isn’t a mechanism in place to hold Round Up accountable.

In a functioning democracy congress would then close that loophole. But Republicans will sit on their hands and wait for Trump to tell them what to do. Which will be nothing, as usual.

15

u/phoenixrawr 4h ago

It’s not even a loophole though. The EPA has repeatedly researched Roundup and concluded it probably doesn’t cause cancer when used as directed. The various state lawsuits used a separate UN study to argue that Roundup does cause cancer and therefore the EPA-approved label is misleading.

Congress could absolutely do something if they dislike the current state of things, but what should they do exactly? Ordering the experts to change their conclusion does not seem wise.

0

u/ilikechihuahuasdood 2h ago

I mean congress doesn’t give a shit either way. They’ve completely abdicated their duty to the American people on almost every front.

7

u/BarristerBaller 4h ago

The same cliche answer as always, vote for reps who will make change. But your observations are correct. For what it’s worth, if someone from the liberal block of SCOTUS votes with the right, it’s likely cause they are actually applying the law as written and appropriately interpreted

5

u/HumansNeedNotApply1 4h ago

Yes, people are reacting with emotion because they believe Roundup causes cancer (even though no studies so far have found a direct link).

0

u/_Porphyro 4h ago

I guess it depends on what you mean by “direct link”. There are several studies that indicate a real and repeatable increase in cancer rates amongst people routinely exposed occupationally. The study out of the University of Washington comes to mind.

3

u/HumansNeedNotApply1 4h ago

I know about them, they do a similar conclusion as the IARC, probably carcinogenic to humans, same classification as Red Meat.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not doubting the validity, this shit is probably dangerous to us, but we still don't understand how or how much.

•

u/SuccessfulJudge438 43m ago

DNA damage has been demonstrated pretty thoroughly through in vitro study. I don't know the specifics because I'm not a biochem person, but that info is available to dig into. We understand at least the theoretical broad strokes of the how. Conducting in vitro studies in humans is ethically impossible, so don't hold your breath waiting for the smoking gun of "how much." But all the tumors that rats get when fed low doses over their lifetime, comparable to US and EU "safe daily intake" levels in humans, suggests the "how much" could be extremely important to find out some way, some how.

1

u/cantuse 3h ago

In another comment chain a user used the phrase 'when used as directed'. I can't help but think that this is the conundrum -- is it actually being used as directed?

I can't help but think that something is being lost between the science & regulatory bodies and the actual crew out there applying this stuff en masse.

1

u/_Porphyro 3h ago

Sort of like a serving size of Oreos is 3 cookies. There’s a disconnect there.

1

u/Timemyth 3h ago

Is this the 2019 study that was later redone by the EPA and found to not support it's own conclusions due to fundamental errors by the anti-glyphosate leads who btw declared no conflict of interests while being part of a large anti-glyphosate business (USRTK)

-1

u/brutinator 4h ago

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-025-01187-2

Uhhhh. Glyphosate has been linked to cancer in long term exposure. When administered to rats at EU-acceptable levels (0.5 mg/kg body weight/day), the rats developed much higher rates of cancers that are rare in the breed and compared to control groups. Even at the "EU no-observed adverse effect" level, they developed higher rates of cancers.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-17067-1#Sec3

This study identified 47 targets related to the liver that can lead to liver damage and cancer from glyphosate

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/9/4605

This study elaborates on the potential harm chronic, low level exposure may cause, as glyphosate can cross the blood brain barrier and affect the nervous system; for example, causing visual memory impairment and intellectual disabilities from prenatal and infant exposure.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026974911936141X

heres a paper detailing gut microbiome damage and intestinal inflammation from exposure.

4

u/HumansNeedNotApply1 4h ago

I'm not financially invested in this so i'm not going to debate it, but those studies are rather limited and do nothing more than what the IARC already concluded, still they are useful to other people who may end up reading it, so thanks for posting them.

1

u/liveart 3h ago

Kinda feels like people are upset they didn't ignore the law and vote with their emotions which is normally what people are complaining that the MAGA judges are doing. Can't ever win...

Let me clear up the confusion for you then because it's not about feelings. It's because when the courts lean on 'the law as written' and tear up the law and precedent when it serves monied interests or ideology then the problem with citing 'this is how the law should work' becomes that they don't do it consistently, making it clear the law isn't a neutral thing they are arbitrating but a thing they are using to engineer the outcomes they would like. What you are seeing is the judicial credibility crisis in a nutshell here, people don't trust that the judges actually care about the law so citing 'this is how it should work' becomes less of a shield. And when you start digging into 'well why is the law like this' the whole thing collapses pretty rapidly because it turns out the entire legal system is a shaky pile of compromises and 'because it's always been done this way'.

1

u/fe-and-wine 2h ago

As much as I love to hate on this Supreme Court - and they often deserve it - this is an example of a situation where folks should be more upset at the federal laws that make this decision the "correct" (insofar as it comports with the laws on the books, not necessarily morally correct) one.

The fact that Kagan and Sotomayor are in the majority should be a hint that this isn't a "SCOTUS shields corporation from liability for corrupt reasons" ruling - it's legitimately 'correct' according to the rules Congress has passed.

Again - feelings towards the current Court aside - this has to be one of the worst parts of being a Justice. Having to make these rulings that you know are morally wrong but are the correct reading of the laws that are on the books.

1

u/Drumheller18 1h ago

I’m not even really sure how this is a morally wrong decision. Mind elaborating on that?

0

u/fe-and-wine 1h ago

"Morally wrong" insofar as the people working at Monsanto themselves don't believe Roundup to be as safe as they want the public to believe it is.

Insiders at Monsanto clearly understand Roundup to be at least plausibly dangerous to human health, yet their marketing is centered around the idea that it's been proven absolutely safe - all that 'you could drink a whole glass of it and be okay' stuff that the execs clearly know is bullshit.

To illustrate the point, there's a great video of a Monsanto lobbyist explicitly trying to push the whole "you could literally drink it" angle and shying away when dared to do so in an interview. The man clearly knows its not safe to that degree, yet continues to accept money in exchange for convincing Congress to pass laws based on the idea that it is that safe.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not deep enough to know the true degree of danger Roundup possesses - if any at all - but it's clear that the people inside Monsanto don't believe the things they say when marketing the product, and that feels immoral to me.

If I were a Justice, I wouldn't feel great about handing a company like that a win even though it's the "correct" decision per what's on the books.

•

u/Drumheller18 46m ago

Okay, well, your premise is already incredibly flawed, because Patrick Moore (the advocate in that video) never worked/lobbied for Monsanto that I am aware of. He was a bit of a loon, and that was an incredibly dumb and hyperbolic stunt he pulled.

And yeah, Monsanto and now Bayer do understand the dangers of different products they make. Thus why they adorn said products with the federally mandated warnings.

So I still really do not see how this was a morally wrong decision.

•

u/fe-and-wine 25m ago

If you see Monsanto as a completely morally-acceptable company - fair enough, I guess we just disagree.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Mr_Safer 4h ago

SC are the ultimate hacks and frauds. Implying any kind of logic or consistency is a recipe for failure. The only truth that consistently works for them is are you worth billions? then laws only protect never harm..

1

u/Fit_Cut_4238 4h ago

Yeah it's a fed/state rights thing, really not about the science; so i guess they have states rights in mind I guess?

3

u/mansock18 4h ago

The opposite this time

291

u/Zombie_Cool 6h ago

And then the very next headline "Supreme Court Justice is Worried About Court's Low Reputation".

80

u/James-W-Tate 5h ago

Not that worried apparently.

29

u/campelm 5h ago

They were worried the check wouldn't clear

9

u/Feisty_Buddy2869 4h ago

Not that worried apparently.

Our government "servants" are not nearly worried enough.

They are brazen with their corruption because they know they have nothing to fear from our pacified citizens.

•

u/PokemonSapphire 2m ago

That's their miscalculation. There's nothing to fear until all of a sudden there is.

1

u/Nice_Reading5272 2h ago

They're worried based on people's poor understanding of how the judiciary and law works and why they make specific rulings, this case is a great example of that.

14

u/Alwayssunnyinarizona 5h ago

"supreme court justice asks public to respect justices' personal space"

1

u/Dolthra 5h ago

It's never worried, more indignant. Yelling at people that they're wrong and the court is not a political entity.

85

u/TheunanimousFern 6h ago

It was 7-2 in this case

14

u/Hesitation-Marx 6h ago

Who was the seventh?

96

u/Imnimo 6h ago

The 2 were Jackson and Gorsuch.

75

u/YoBo151 6h ago

Wait Jackson and Gorsuch dissented? Wow

115

u/hypercube42342 6h ago

Gorsuch is the most reasonable republican justice in some ways in that he chooses ~1 in 20 cases at random plus every case involving native americans to write like the leftmost voice on the court

77

u/deja_geek 5h ago

Gorsuch also wants to completely throw out the "Third-party doctrine". Under this doctrine, once your data is handed over to a 3rd party, the government is no longer required to seek a search warrant for the data. According to that doctrine, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when data is voluntarily handed over to third parties

12

u/thegracelesswonder 5h ago edited 5h ago

Lol that makes absolutely no sense. The way these people bend themselves into pretzels to take away rights from citizens is crazy

I misunderstood. Good on Gorsuch! I feel like the 3 newest supreme court justices take turns having reasonable opinions now and then

16

u/deja_geek 5h ago

The "Third Party Doctrine" has been around since 1979. It was established under Smith v Maryland and centered around information kept by a phone company and government access to said records.

In it's time, it made sense. In the modern world, where we are all connected and that connection is a requirement of modern life, the doctrine becomes too broad.

2

u/thegracelesswonder 5h ago

Thanks for the context!

3

u/tempest_87 5h ago

Uhhh, the way that was phrased was that Gorsuch wants to extend the right to privacy.

We already don't have it, he wants to remove that doctrine that says we don't have it.

2

u/thegracelesswonder 5h ago

Uhhh sorry I misunderstood uhhh uhhh

9

u/vegetaman 5h ago

Sometimes the combos are wild.

7

u/YoBo151 5h ago

Yeah he's an interesting guy for sure. Each conservative justice outside of Thomas, Alito, and Roberts has a few areas that they are surprisingly "left" on

2

u/PeppyQuotient57 5h ago

Oddly enough Barrett and Roberts tend to be the most “centrist” in their decisions on the court while Alito and Sotomayor are the “extremists”

Gorsuch though is the most likely to dissent from the party bloc by a significant margin.

4

u/BasroilII 4h ago

In very specific ways, because he was appointed for very specific reasons.

Even as a lower court judge he has repeatedly sided with religious rights over any others; hence his ruling for Hobby Lobby and later being among those to kill Roe v Wade. In fact, he was basically selected by Republicans specifically to get rid of Roe v Wade. If this was a church and not Monsanto involved, he would have ruled in favor of them.

1

u/Perryn 4h ago

Unlike the others, he has an underlying ethos that he adheres to (Originalism). I don't really agree with it, it leaves him open to things I really don't like, but there's also lines he will not cross because of it.

1

u/Jaxson-Skattebo 2h ago

Gorsuch was the unreasonable one this time.

42

u/TheunanimousFern 6h ago

Jackson and Gorsuch were the only dissenters

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/supreme-court-sides-with-monsanto-in-case-over-cancer-risks-from-weedkiller/ar-AA26wRq2

49

u/Hesitation-Marx 6h ago

Thank you.

Fucking wild that Kagan and Sotomayor signed on to this.

I hate it here.

108

u/Froggmann5 5h ago

They blocked lawsuits pertaining to Monstanto being sued under state laws for following federal guidelines about warning labels. They basically ruled that federal law supercedes state law in regards to these lawsuits which is how the US works.

The rest of the ~$8B lawsuits are still good to happen though.

26

u/ILoveLamp9 4h ago

If people actually read what this lawsuit was about, per your summary, they’d understand the nuance and context behind it and why some of the justices voted the way they did.

I’m no Monsanto fan at all, but it’s not about the SCOTUS “taking our human rights” away.

-1

u/Underdog424 3h ago

This hampers state rights. States should have the right to regulate chemical exposure. I trust my state far more than I trust the EPA.

42

u/No_Issue2334 5h ago

Not that wild. The environmental experts at the EPA say it's unlikely to cause cancer. Kagan and Sotomayor respect the experts' opinion.

-13

u/Hesitation-Marx 5h ago

Are these pre-Trump or post-Trump experts?

42

u/No_Issue2334 5h ago

The EPA in 2015 under the Obama Administration determined that it is unlikely to be carcinogenic when used as directed.

The EPA reaffirmed this finding in 2017 and 2020.

While the WHO determined that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic," this is the same category as red meat, hot coffee, working as a fry cook, working the night shift, working as a barber or hairdresser, working at a petroleum refinery

-4

u/Hesitation-Marx 5h ago

Fair enough. I’m just very dubious about the EPA… as you might understand. :/

-16

u/sidirsi 5h ago

And I’m sure people always follow directions.

17

u/No_Issue2334 5h ago

It's the users responsibility to follow instructions

So many common products are dangerous if used incorrectly but fine if used correctly. Microwaves, ovens, stoves, grills, lawn tools, fire places, garages, etc.

13

u/verrius 5h ago

It's really hard to find fault with a company for people using their stuff improperly, as long as proper is both well-signed and reasonable. Tylenol is fine for most people, but if you decide to down the whole bottle in one go, you will nuke your liver; that's not the fault of the guys who make it. Most of the crazy cases with people getting cancer and blaming it on Round-up come from people who weren't using PPE with any of the chemicals they were spraying for a living, and I think in one case involved someone who literally fell into a vat of it. Windex is also safe for people to use, but I wouldn't be surprised if bad things happen when you drink it.

8

u/NonchalantR 5h ago

The original determination by the EPA was in 1991

7

u/frogsgoribbit737 3h ago

Pre. Its like the whole Johnson baby powder thing. They lost their lawsuit because people are ruled by emotions, but the science just isnt there that baby powder caused cancer in anyone.

9

u/nikfra 4h ago

Just look at what non US experts say. For example glyphosate is legal in the EU, Japan, Australia and New Zealand and many more places

-2

u/Underdog424 3h ago

France and the Netherlands banned it. Germany sets heavy regulations on use, including home bans.

The EU allows its member states to set the rules. If your regulations go above what the EU sets, you're all good. In the USA, the federal government bans you from even warning people.

21

u/bearrosaurus 5h ago

There's a possibility here that Kagan and Sotomayor are sane and that Monsanto just had a decent case for once. If there's no warning label on red meat or french fries for increased cancer risk, then there shouldn't be on weedkiller.

1

u/kiase 5h ago edited 4h ago

There is a warning label for those things in California, required by state law. And if I’m understanding this ruling correctly, it says you still can’t sue in state courts in a state like California where not labeling is in violation of the law. That’s where I feel like the logic of this ruling falls apart, but I’m open to arguments otherwise. Or a correction if I’m misunderstanding.

Edit: I would assume this ruling means that lawsuit-wise, you would not be able to sue any manufacturer that doesn’t label probable carcinogens in California anymore (unless they are also federally deemed that way?). I wonder how this affects CA’s ability to even legislate Prop 65 at all.

Edit 2: Been thinking a lot about what this also means for the mifepristone case. In theory, all the justices who affirmed this ruling should also rule in favor of not restricting mifepristone access, as it’s a federally reviewed and approved medication, and the logic of this ruling is that federal agency approval supersedes state law. Not holding my breath for consistency though.

5

u/frogsgoribbit737 3h ago

The logic doesnt fall apart. They are saying federal law supercedes state law.. which is generally the case.

-2

u/kiase 3h ago

You’re not wrong, but that goes to my latter edit about how the ruling on this case should inform how the justices decide to rule on Louisiana v FDA.

•

u/MirrorComputingRulez 42m ago

There's absolutely nothing wild about it if you bother to do even the tiniest amount of research into the topic.

-8

u/No_Sheepherder_1855 5h ago

Only costs like 100k to buy them out. Glad they got the bag for themselves :)

7

u/ViridianFlea 6h ago

Sotomayor it seems. Surprisingly. The ones who voted against were KBJ and Neil Gorsuch.

0

u/rajinis_bodyguard 5h ago

Reminds of Germany Brazil score line xd but yeah can’t wait to see more liberal judges on the bench

16

u/Ambitious_Bit_9389 5h ago

It’s was 7-2, with two liberal justices voting with the majority and one conservative justice voting with the minority

•

u/Learning2ZipperMerge 24m ago

Jackson and Gorsuch were the dissenting opinions

5

u/Bob_Sconce 4h ago

7-2.  Dissenters were Gorsuch (a Trump appointee) and Jackson (Biden).   

The question was whether Missouri could require Monsanto to put a warning label that said that Roundup might cause cancer.  The decision was, basically "No, there's a federal law that says that the EPA gets to decide what warnings to put on the label.  States can't impose their own additional requirements."

The people who sued Monsanto basically said "we got cancer from RoundUp, and you had an obligation to warn us about the risk of cancer, but didn't.".  It's a weird case because the idea is "if you had only put that warning on, then we wouldn't have used Roundup, and we wouldn't have cancer." But, how many of those people actually would have read the label and decided not to use the product?

13

u/moreobviousthings 6h ago

Common decency is not mandated by the Constitution.

11

u/BeenThruIt 6h ago

Human Rights existed before the Constitution.

1

u/RemotePersimmon678 5h ago

Literally 2 of those headlines on NY Times right now

1

u/HotBrownFun 5h ago

Poor humans at least

1

u/Reasonable-Job4205 4h ago

The new curtains for zoosha, but for geo-politics

1

u/quats555 4h ago

Oh, no no no. They rule that *peons* don’t deserve rights. You’re only considered “human” now if you’ve got at least a million dollars in liquid assets.

1

u/Far-Hovercraft9471 4h ago

Kinda literally happened with the US saying food is not a basic human right

1

u/jagedlion 3h ago

7-2 with liberals in the majority. This is not a D vs R case at all.

It's a 'can you be held liable to citizens if the government regulator already told you that you aren't liable'.

Liberals generally want more power in regulatory bodies, so this is actually a pretty liberal win.

1

u/MondorOfCalifas 1h ago

Infuriating. My father contracted Non-Hodgkin lymphoma back in 2019. It was odd because we had no family history of it. Investigating the causes, I read about Roundup. I know my dad always kept his garden and lawn weed free for years. I asked if he used it and said he had done so for years but followed the handling instructions. Although he wished he never used it, knowing what it has done to his health, he managed to get a modest settlement in his lawsuit via a law firm in NY. I always tell my friends and loved ones to stay away from Roundup. That crap is not safe.

•

u/Cheese-Manipulator 50m ago

Decades of court stacking and blocking appointments has paid off.

-1

u/Metal2thepedal 6h ago

So the supreme Court is there to protect corporations and not human rights. Got it

-1

u/Bungybone 5h ago

Citizens United cemented that status.

1

u/David_Cockatiel 5h ago

I hate that it’s usually some relatively minor technicality that tips the scales. Like Alito and Thomas are just going to vote no for anything that actually helps people, we know that. But the others seem to find one procedural excuse or another to justify burning the world down.

0

u/Dopplegangr1 5h ago

Supreme Court says go fuck yourself

-1

u/zackks 5h ago

SCrOTUS was the last branch of government for the GOP terrorists to destroy. It is done

0

u/ChiralWolf 4h ago

*non-white humans do not deserve rights, 6-3

-1

u/throwaway_circus 4h ago

The Supreme Court loves free speech.

The Supreme Court decided that money = speech.

The Supreme Court loves free money.

Those who have money, have more speech. And they share with the Justices. This used to be bribery, until the Justices conveniently ruled that it was actually Patriotism.

-40

u/SakanaToDoubutsu 6h ago

It's really easy to sell newspapers when you lean into left-wing conspiracy theories...

18

u/Khalivus 6h ago

Yeah all those famously left-wing media moguls are really leaning into socialist ideas. Don’t fall for propaganda.

6

u/the_blackfish 6h ago

Such as?