Roundup Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Lawsuit: Settlement and Supreme Court

The Roundup non-Hodgkin lymphoma lawsuit landscape in mid-2026 comes down to three moving parts: about 61,000 active cases in U.S. courts, a proposed $7.25 billion class settlement awaiting a fairness hearing on July 9, 2026, and a pending U.S. Supreme Court decision that could eliminate the legal theory behind nearly every claim.¹² Bayer, which inherited the litigation when it bought Monsanto in 2018, has already paid roughly $11 billion in prior settlements.

Who Can File a Roundup Lawsuit

Eligibility generally requires three things: documented exposure to Roundup, a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and no prior participation in a Roundup settlement.³ Exposure can be occupational (farmworkers, landscapers, groundskeepers) or residential.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is the diagnosis at the center of the litigation. Subtypes alleged in lawsuits include diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.³ The proposed class settlement is structured specifically around NHL diagnoses.

Multiple myeloma has been alleged in some suits, and a 2019 animal study found chronic glyphosate exposure promoted its progression in mice, with some case-control studies from Iowa, France, and Canada suggesting an association. The large-scale Agricultural Health Study found no link.⁴ In practice, most law firms have not been accepting multiple myeloma cases and are prioritizing NHL claims.

Statutes of limitations vary by state and can be as short as one year from diagnosis. Many states apply a “discovery rule” that starts the clock when the claimant learns their illness may be linked to Roundup, not from the diagnosis date itself.³

The Proposed $7.25 Billion Class Settlement

On February 17, 2026, Monsanto filed a proposed nationwide class settlement in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, offering up to $7.25 billion to resolve current and future Roundup cancer claims. The deal was negotiated over 18 months with a mediator and includes no admission of liability. Payments are structured as declining capped annual amounts over up to 21 years.⁵

The class covers anyone exposed to Roundup before February 17, 2026, who has been diagnosed with NHL or receives a diagnosis within 16 years of the deal receiving final approval. If finalized, individual payouts would range from roughly $6,000 to $165,000, depending on the claimant’s age at diagnosis, whether exposure was occupational, and cancer severity.⁶ A Missouri court granted preliminary approval on March 4, 2026.

The class includes a “futures” category: people who don’t currently have cancer but might develop it. Anyone in that group who did not opt out by the June 4, 2026 deadline will be bound by the settlement’s terms, potentially into the 2040s.⁷ Bayer reserves the right to walk away from the deal if too many claimants opt out.⁵

Objections and the Fairness Hearing

The settlement faces heavy opposition. Attorneys for 13 cancer patients filed formal objections alleging “collusion” between Bayer and the class action lawyers negotiating the deal, who stand to receive $675 million in fees.⁸ Robin Greenwald of Weitz & Luxenberg, representing roughly 2,000 Roundup clients, announced plans to file additional objections.

Critics called the opt-out procedures “draconian,” noting that cancer patients must submit medical records and government-issued photo identification to withdraw from the settlement.⁹ Objectors have also challenged the Missouri court’s jurisdiction to bind plaintiffs in other states and called the liability release “breathtakingly broad.”⁶ A separate group argued the settlement allows Bayer to keep selling Roundup without cancer warnings while cutting off future jury trials.⁷

Federal MDL Judge Vince Chhabria, who has previously rejected Bayer’s settlement proposals, reportedly described the fast-track approval process as “filthy.”⁹ Objectors tried to move the case from Missouri state court to federal court, but on June 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge Edward Autrey ordered it remanded back to the St. Louis Circuit Court. Objectors appealed.⁷

The final fairness hearing before Missouri Judge Timothy Boyer is scheduled for July 9, 2026. As of early June, more than 100 class members and a dozen health care companies had filed objections.¹⁰

The Supreme Court Case That Could End the Litigation

While the fairness hearing plays out in Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a case that could eliminate the legal theory behind nearly every Roundup lawsuit. In Monsanto Company v. Durnell (No. 24-1068), the Court is examining whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has not required a cancer warning on a product’s label.²

John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri in 2019 and won a $1.25 million jury award. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in February 2025, rejecting Monsanto’s preemption defense. The Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the U.S. Supreme Court took it up in January 2026.¹¹

Oral arguments took place on April 27, 2026. Monsanto, represented by Paul Clement, argued that FIFRA creates both express and implied preemption because the EPA must approve all label changes and has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate does not warrant a cancer warning. The U.S. Solicitor General filed an amicus brief supporting Monsanto’s position, arguing that FIFRA’s “uniformity requirement” bars states from compelling warnings the EPA hasn’t authorized. Durnell’s attorney countered that EPA registration is not a binding mandate and that state tort claims serve as a parallel enforcement mechanism consistent with federal law.¹²

A ruling for Monsanto could substantially limit or end state-law failure-to-warn claims nationwide, gutting the legal foundation for virtually every Roundup lawsuit. A ruling for Durnell would preserve the existing litigation framework. A decision is expected by early July 2026.²

State Laws That May Block Claims

Some states have moved to legislatively shield pesticide manufacturers from failure-to-warn claims, independent of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Georgia enacted SB 144 in May 2025 (effective January 1, 2026), which prohibits holding manufacturers liable under state law for failing to warn of health risks beyond what the EPA requires on the label. North Dakota followed with HB 1318, enacted in April 2025, establishing that a federally approved label fulfills all duty-to-warn obligations.¹³ Similar bills were introduced in Iowa, Florida, Idaho, and several other states in 2025, though most were rejected or stalled.¹⁴ If you were exposed and diagnosed in one of these states, the shielding law may affect your ability to bring a failure-to-warn claim.

How the Science and the Verdicts Got Here

The scientific case for the lawsuits traces to a 2015 decision by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization. IARC classified glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), citing evidence linking occupational exposure to elevated rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.¹⁵

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagrees, maintaining that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The EPA says its assessment drew on 15 acceptable carcinogenicity studies compared to IARC’s eight, including proprietary manufacturer data that IARC’s methodology excluded.¹⁶ That disagreement has been the central battleground in every Roundup trial.

Discovery in the litigation produced the “Monsanto Papers,” millions of pages of internal documents progressively unsealed starting in March 2017. They showed Monsanto employees ghostwriting scientific manuscripts published under outside researchers’ names, coordination with EPA officials to suppress independent safety reviews, and the operation of an “Intelligence Fusion Center” to monitor critics.¹⁷ An academic analysis of 141 declassified documents in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine concluded that the records documented interference in the peer review process.¹⁸

Federal cases were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation before Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California. In July 2018, Judge Chhabria issued a Daubert ruling allowing plaintiffs’ expert witnesses to testify, concluding that a reasonable jury could find Roundup capable of causing NHL at real-world exposure levels.¹⁹

Bayer lost the first three trials, and the pattern of enormous jury awards followed by substantial reductions has repeated ever since:

Johnson v. Monsanto (August 2018): a San Francisco jury awarded $289 million to former groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson. The trial court reduced the award to $78.5 million, and a California appeals court further cut it to roughly $20.5 million.²⁰
Hardeman v. Monsanto (March 2019): the first federal bellwether trial produced an $80 million verdict, reduced to $25 million and upheld by the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Bayer’s appeal in June 2022.²¹
Pilliod v. Monsanto (May 2019): a jury awarded married couple Alva and Alberta Pilliod over $2 billion, reduced by the trial judge to approximately $87 million. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Bayer’s certiorari petition in June 2022.²²
McKivison (November 2023): a Philadelphia jury awarded $2.25 billion; a judge reduced it to $404 million.²¹
Barnes v. Monsanto (March 2025): a Georgia jury awarded $2.1 billion — $2 billion in punitive damages and $65 million compensatory — to a plaintiff who alleged Roundup caused his marginal zone lymphoma. Bayer called the verdict inconsistent with scientific consensus and plans to appeal.²³

Where Things Stand

About 61,000 Roundup lawsuits remain active across the United States, with roughly 4,000 in the federal MDL and a large concentration of about 30,000 cases in Cole County, Missouri.¹ Bayer has already paid roughly $11 billion in prior settlements, including a June 2020 deal of up to $10.9 billion covering about 100,000 claims.²⁴

Two decisions in the summer of 2026 will shape whatever happens next. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell, expected by early July, could either validate the legal theory behind the lawsuits or eliminate it. The July 9 fairness hearing will determine whether the $7.25 billion class settlement moves forward or collapses. If you have an NHL diagnosis and Roundup exposure history, the statute of limitations in your state, whether your state has enacted a shielding law, and whether you were captured by the class settlement’s June 4 opt-out deadline all bear on your options — and each of those is worth reviewing with an attorney before the summer’s rulings land.

1
Drugwatch. Roundup Settlements
2
SCOTUSblog. Justices to Consider Relationship Between Federal and State Rules for Cancer Warnings on Pesticides
3
Drugwatch. Roundup Lawsuit
4
National Library of Medicine. Glyphosate and Multiple Myeloma in Mice
5
Bayer. Monsanto Announces Roundup Class Settlement Agreement
6
Chemical & Engineering News. Bayer Roundup Glyphosate Cancer Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
7
The New Lede. Battle Over $7.25 Billion Roundup Settlement Takes a New Turn
8
Reuters. Bayer’s $7.25 Billion Roundup Settlement Faces Court Objections
9
The Western Producer. Bayer’s $7.25 Billion Roundup Settlement Faces Court Objections
10
Law.com. Federal Roundup Judge Refuses to Step Into $7.25B Class Settlement
11
Bayer. Managing the Roundup Litigation
12
SCOTUSblog. Monsanto Company v. Durnell
13
CSG Midwest. Legislative Proposals and a New Law in North Dakota Seek Changes on When Pesticide Makers Can Be Held Liable for Failure to Warn
14
U.S. Supreme Court. Amici Brief in Monsanto v. Durnell
15
IARC/WHO. Glyphosate Monograph Now Available
16
U.S. EPA. Glyphosate
17
Wisner Baum. Monsanto Papers
18
National Library of Medicine (PubMed). The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the Scientific Well
19
Justice Pesticides. Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL
20
ConsumerSafety.org. Roundup Verdicts
21
Verus LLC. Roundup Litigation Support Timeline
22
Justia. Pilliod v. Monsanto Co., California Court of Appeal
23
PBS NewsHour. Georgia Jury Orders Monsanto Parent to Pay Nearly $2.1 Billion
24
U.S. Right to Know. Monsanto Papers