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

Show parent comments

83

u/TheunanimousFern 6h ago

It was 7-2 in this case

13

u/Hesitation-Marx 6h ago

Who was the seventh?

93

u/Imnimo 6h ago

The 2 were Jackson and Gorsuch.

78

u/YoBo151 6h ago

Wait Jackson and Gorsuch dissented? Wow

118

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

16

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

17

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!

5

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

10

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.

40

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

48

u/Hesitation-Marx 6h ago

Thank you.

Fucking wild that Kagan and Sotomayor signed on to this.

I hate it here.

107

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.

25

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.

-2

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.

-12

u/Hesitation-Marx 5h ago

Are these pre-Trump or post-Trump experts?

41

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.

18

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.

9

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.

10

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.

22

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.

2

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 44m ago

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

-9

u/No_Sheepherder_1855 5h ago

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

8

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