The Roundup Cancer Trials: From the $289 Million Verdict to the 2026 Supreme Court Ruling

In August 2018, a San Francisco jury found that Monsanto’s Roundup weed killers were a substantial factor in causing a school groundskeeper’s terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that the company had failed to warn of the risk. The jury awarded him $289 million, including $250 million in punitive damages. The verdict, the first of thousands of Roundup cancer cases to go to trial, made headlines around the world, sent the share price of Monsanto’s new owner Bayer tumbling, and opened the door to more than 100,000 lawsuits.

Eight years later, the legal situation has changed dramatically. The original award was reduced, Bayer paid billions in settlements, and in June 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims when the Environmental Protection Agency has not required a cancer warning. This article traces the Roundup litigation from that first verdict to the Supreme Court, explains the scientific evidence that juries heard, what internal company documents revealed, and what the outcome means for people exposed to glyphosate.

Did Roundup cause cancer, and what happened in the lawsuits? A 2018 jury awarded a groundskeeper with lymphoma $289 million, reduced on appeal to about $20.5 million, launching over 100,000 Roundup cases. The science is contested: the WHO’s cancer agency called glyphosate “probably carcinogenic,” while the EPA and a large farmer study found no clear link. Bayer paid billions in settlements and won a 2026 Supreme Court ruling limiting warning claims.

What Happened in the First Roundup Cancer Trial?

In 2018 a San Francisco jury found Roundup was a substantial factor in a school groundskeeper’s terminal lymphoma and awarded $289 million, later cut to about $20.5 million on appeal while the liability finding stood. The plaintiff, a groundskeeper for a California school district, had sprayed large quantities of glyphosate-based herbicides as part of his job, sometimes experiencing heavy exposure, including an accident in which he was drenched with the product. He was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides, a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma affecting the skin, in 2014. His case was expedited because doctors expected him to die soon. As summarized in records of the case, the jury found in August 2018 that Roundup and a related product presented a substantial danger, that Monsanto failed to adequately warn of it, and that the company acted with malice or oppression, awarding $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages, bringing the total to $78.5 million, and in 2020 a California appeals court reduced the award to about $20.5 million while upholding the jury’s finding that Monsanto was liable.

Other verdicts followed. In 2019, a federal jury awarded a California man $80 million, and a state jury awarded a married couple more than $2 billion, later reduced to $87 million. Monsanto won a number of later trials, and outcomes varied from case to case, reflecting differences in exposure, evidence, and juries.

Does Roundup (Glyphosate) Actually Cause Cancer?

The science is contested: the WHO’s IARC called glyphosate “probably carcinogenic” in 2015 and some analyses link high exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, while the EPA and a large farmer cohort found no clear link. The trials turned on whether glyphosate-based herbicides can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Plaintiffs relied heavily on the International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC’s 2015 summary in The Lancet Oncology, by Kathryn Guyton and colleagues, classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans based on limited evidence in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, sufficient evidence in animals, and strong mechanistic evidence for genotoxicity and oxidative stress. A 2014 meta-analysis in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health by Leah Schinasi and Maria Leon, which IARC considered, reported that B-cell lymphoma was positively associated with glyphosate in the studies that examined subtypes. A 2019 meta-analysis in Mutation Research by Luoping Zhang and colleagues, focusing on the highest exposures, found a 41 percent increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Monsanto pointed to different evidence. The Agricultural Health Study, reported in 2018 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute by Gabriella Andreotti and colleagues, followed more than 54,000 pesticide applicators and found no association between glyphosate use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma overall. A 2019 pooled analysis of agricultural cohorts by Maria Leon and colleagues found no overall association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma but a borderline elevated risk for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The EPA and several international regulators concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic at expected human exposures, partly because they focused on pure glyphosate and on different sets of studies, while IARC also considered formulated products and published research.

What the “Monsanto Papers” Revealed

Litigation forced the release of internal Monsanto documents that became central to the punitive damages claims. A 2018 analysis in the International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine by philosopher of science Leemon McHenry examined 141 declassified documents and concluded that they revealed Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on a retraction, and the creation of a supposedly academic website that served as a front for defending the company’s products. Plaintiffs used such documents to argue that Monsanto had sought to shape the science rather than investigate cancer concerns. Monsanto and Bayer maintained that the documents were taken out of context and that glyphosate’s safety was supported by extensive regulatory review. Regardless of how one weighs the science, the documents raised serious concerns about corporate influence on research that extend beyond glyphosate.

Who Is Exposed

The plaintiffs in Roundup trials were mostly people with heavy, repeated exposure: groundskeepers, landscapers, farmers, and homeowners who sprayed large areas for years. Most of the general public is exposed at much lower levels, primarily through food. A 2022 CDC analysis in Environment International by María Ospina and colleagues found glyphosate in the urine of 81.2 percent of Americans aged 6 and older in 2013–2014. Whether these low dietary exposures pose cancer risks is less clear than for heavily exposed applicators, which is why studies of high-exposure groups are emphasized in cancer assessments.

How Did the Roundup Litigation Reach the Supreme Court?

After early verdicts and more than 100,000 claims, Bayer paid about $10 billion in 2020 settlements, proposed a $7.25 billion class settlement in 2026, and took a failure-to-warn case to the Supreme Court. On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that because the EPA had not required a cancer warning on glyphosate-based products, federal pesticide law preempted a Missouri man’s claim that Monsanto should have warned of cancer risk, overturning his $1.25 million verdict. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The ruling is expected to lead to dismissal of many pending failure-to-warn lawsuits, while Bayer said it would continue pursuing final approval of the class settlement, which had received preliminary approval. Plaintiffs’ attorneys said the settlement guaranteed compensation regardless of the ruling. Our article on Bayer after the Monsanto acquisition covers the company’s broader situation.

What Did the 2026 Supreme Court Ruling Change?

In June 2026 the Court ruled 7-2 that federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has not required a cancer warning, a legal decision that did not resolve whether glyphosate causes cancer. The Supreme Court decided a legal question about the relationship between federal and state law, not a scientific question about cancer. It held that state juries cannot impose liability for failing to include a cancer warning that federal regulators have not required. The Court did not find that glyphosate is safe or that it causes cancer. Claims based on other legal theories, such as design defects, may face different analyses, and EPA’s future decisions on glyphosate labeling now carry greater weight. For people who believe Roundup caused their cancer, the class settlement is likely the main avenue for compensation, and anyone in that situation should consult a qualified attorney about deadlines and options.

The Role of EPA Going Forward

Because the Supreme Court tied warning requirements to EPA’s labeling decisions, the agency’s ongoing review of glyphosate has become more consequential. In 2022, a federal appeals court found that EPA had not adequately supported its conclusion that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer and ordered the agency to revisit parts of its analysis, and EPA withdrew its interim decision. How EPA completes this review, and whether it changes labeling, will shape both public health protections and future litigation. Members of the public can participate through comment periods on pesticide registration decisions.

Lessons From the Roundup Litigation

The Roundup cases illustrate how courts, regulators, and scientists can reach different conclusions about the same chemical. Juries weighed expert testimony and company conduct in individual cases, regulators assessed population-level risks under legal standards, and scientific bodies evaluated hazard using different criteria. The litigation also exposed corporate efforts to influence science, prompting calls for greater transparency in research funding and authorship. For consumers, the cases raised awareness of herbicide exposure and led to changes such as the reformulation of residential products and local policies limiting herbicide use in parks and schools, as described in our article on communities reducing Roundup use.

How Can I Reduce My Glyphosate Exposure?

Use protective equipment if you spray herbicides, consider non-chemical weed control at home, and choose organic grains and legumes, since glyphosate is often applied to conventional crops before harvest. Whatever the legal outcome, people can reduce glyphosate exposure. Those who apply herbicides at work should wear gloves, long sleeves, and eye protection, follow label directions, avoid spraying in windy conditions, wash skin and clothing promptly after use, and report spills or soaking incidents to employers and health care providers. Homeowners can use mulching, hand weeding, and other non-chemical methods. Choosing organic grains, oats, and legumes reduces dietary residues, since glyphosate is often used on conventional crops before harvest. Communities can adopt integrated pest management for public spaces.

Understanding Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a group of cancers that begin in lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell. It is among the more common cancers in the United States, with tens of thousands of new cases diagnosed each year. Known or suspected risk factors include older age, weakened immune systems, certain infections such as HIV and Epstein-Barr virus, autoimmune diseases, and exposure to some chemicals, including certain pesticides and solvents. Because many factors contribute and most cases have no identifiable cause, linking an individual’s lymphoma to a specific exposure is difficult, one reason Roundup trials depended heavily on expert testimony about likelihood rather than certainty.

How Toxic Tort Cases Work

In toxic tort lawsuits, plaintiffs must generally show that a product can cause the disease in question (general causation) and that it likely caused their own illness (specific causation). Experts typically rely on epidemiology, animal studies, mechanistic evidence, and the plaintiff’s exposure history. Courts screen expert testimony for scientific reliability before it reaches juries. Failure-to-warn claims also require showing that the manufacturer knew or should have known of a risk and did not provide adequate warnings. The Supreme Court’s preemption ruling removed this last pathway in the Roundup context unless federal regulators require a warning.

International Perspectives

Countries have taken different approaches to glyphosate. The European Union renewed its approval in 2023 for ten years after its food safety agency concluded that glyphosate did not meet criteria for classification as carcinogenic, though some member states have restricted use in public spaces or by private gardeners. Several countries and local governments have restricted or banned glyphosate use in certain settings. These varied responses reflect differences in regulatory philosophy, public concern, and agricultural needs.

A Balanced View

The Roundup litigation began with a jury finding that a groundskeeper’s lymphoma was linked to heavy herbicide exposure and that Monsanto failed to warn. Scientific evidence on glyphosate and cancer remains contested, with IARC and some meta-analyses pointing to increased risk at high exposures and large cohort studies and regulators finding no clear link. Internal documents revealed troubling efforts to influence science. The 2026 Supreme Court ruling resolved a legal question in Monsanto’s favor without settling the science. People with high exposure have the strongest reasons to take precautions, and transparency in research and regulation remains essential.

How Glyphosate Works and Why It Is Everywhere

Glyphosate kills plants by blocking an enzyme in a metabolic pathway that plants, fungi, and many bacteria use to make certain amino acids; animals lack this pathway, which is one reason it was long considered low in toxicity to people. Introduced by Monsanto in 1974, it became the world’s most widely used herbicide after the introduction of genetically engineered crops tolerant to it in the 1990s. Farmers spray it on herbicide-tolerant corn, soybeans, and cotton, use it before planting to clear weeds, and sometimes apply it shortly before harvest to dry down grain crops. It is also widely used in landscaping, on roadsides, and in home gardens. This ubiquity explains both its commercial importance and the large number of people with some exposure.

Why IARC and EPA Disagreed

The divergence between IARC and EPA was central to the litigation. IARC evaluates hazard, whether a substance can cause cancer under some circumstances, while regulators assess risk, whether it is likely to cause cancer at expected exposure levels. IARC relied mainly on published, peer-reviewed studies, including research on formulated products that contain surfactants and other ingredients, and gave weight to occupational studies and mechanistic data. EPA reviewed a broader set of studies, including unpublished industry-submitted research, focused on pure glyphosate, and placed more emphasis on large cohort studies. A 2022 federal appeals court decision found that EPA had not adequately justified parts of its cancer conclusion, adding to the debate.

The Timing of Bayer’s Purchase

Bayer completed its roughly $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto in June 2018, just two months before the first Roundup verdict. The timing meant that Bayer inherited the litigation just as it escalated. Investors questioned whether Bayer had adequately assessed the legal risks, and the company’s market value fell sharply in the following years. The financial pressure shaped Bayer’s strategy of settlements, residential product reformulation, and pursuit of a Supreme Court ruling.

Glyphosate in Everyday Food

For most people, food is the main route of glyphosate exposure. Residues are commonly found in grain-based foods such as oat cereals, breads, and crackers, as well as in legumes, reflecting both use on herbicide-tolerant crops and pre-harvest application on conventional grains. Measured residues in most foods fall within legal tolerance levels set by EPA. Studies have shown that switching to an organic diet can reduce urinary glyphosate levels substantially within days, which offers a practical option for people who wish to lower their exposure regardless of the scientific debate.

Public Health Lessons

The Roundup story offers broader lessons for public health. Independent research on widely used chemicals is essential, especially when regulators rely heavily on industry-submitted data. Transparency about funding and authorship helps the public trust scientific conclusions. Protecting workers with the highest exposures should be a priority whenever evidence suggests potential risks. And clear communication about the difference between hazard and risk can help people understand why scientific agencies sometimes reach different conclusions. When evidence is uncertain, precautionary measures for the most exposed groups, such as protective equipment, training, and reduced use in public spaces, offer practical protection while research continues.

Why Juries Focused on Company Conduct

Punitive damages, which made up most of the original $289 million award, are intended to punish especially wrongful conduct rather than compensate for harm. In the Roundup trials, plaintiffs’ attorneys emphasized internal documents suggesting that Monsanto sought to influence research and regulators rather than conduct additional studies on cancer risk. Jurors in several cases cited this conduct when explaining their decisions. Appeals courts often reduced punitive awards as excessive relative to compensatory damages, a common outcome in large verdicts, while sometimes upholding findings that the company acted improperly.

Groundskeepers, Farmers, and Workplace Safety

The first Roundup plaintiff was exposed through his job, a reminder that pesticide applicators, groundskeepers, landscapers, and farmworkers bear the highest exposures to many agricultural and landscaping chemicals. Employers are responsible for providing training, protective equipment, and safe procedures, and workers have a right to information about hazards. Accidental soaking, spray drift, and repeated skin contact increase exposure. Workplace programs that reduce pesticide use through integrated pest management protect workers as well as the public.

Questions to Ask If You Used Roundup Heavily

How often and for how long did I use glyphosate products, and did I wear protective equipment? Did I experience soaking or significant skin exposure? Do I have symptoms such as persistent swollen lymph nodes, unexplained weight loss, fevers, or night sweats that should be evaluated? Should I discuss my exposure history with my doctor? If I have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, what are my legal options and deadlines under the class settlement? Answering these questions helps people make informed health and legal decisions.

Looking Ahead

With the Supreme Court ruling and the proposed class settlement, the Roundup litigation is likely moving toward resolution, though appeals, opt-outs, and other legal theories may continue for years. EPA’s review of glyphosate, scientific research on herbicides and cancer, and policy debates over pesticide labeling will shape the next chapter. The cases have already changed how companies, regulators, and the public think about corporate influence on science and the importance of independent research. They have also prompted many cities, school districts, and park agencies to review their use of herbicides, a trend likely to continue regardless of how the remaining legal questions are resolved.

Practical Takeaways

If you apply herbicides, use protective equipment and follow label directions. Consider non-chemical weed control at home and support integrated pest management in your community. Choose organic grains and legumes to reduce dietary glyphosate. If you have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after heavy Roundup use, consult a qualified attorney promptly about settlement options. Stay informed about EPA’s glyphosate review.

Common Myths

“Monsanto paid $289 million to the first plaintiff.” The award was reduced to about $20.5 million on appeal.

“The Supreme Court ruled Roundup is safe.” It ruled on federal preemption of warning claims, not on safety.

“All studies show glyphosate causes cancer.” Evidence is mixed; a large farmer cohort found no overall association.

“Everyone exposed to glyphosate will get cancer.” Even studies finding increased risk show modest increases concentrated among the most heavily exposed.

“Home Roundup still contains glyphosate.” U.S. residential Roundup products replaced glyphosate in 2023.

Key Terms

Punitive damages: Damages intended to punish wrongful conduct.

Preemption: The principle that federal law overrides conflicting state law.

Failure to warn: A claim that a manufacturer did not adequately warn about a product’s risks.

Ghostwriting: Writing published under another person’s name without disclosing the true author.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A group of cancers of the lymphatic system.

The Bottom Line

The 2018 verdict awarding $289 million to a school groundskeeper with non-Hodgkin lymphoma launched more than 100,000 Roundup lawsuits, though the award itself was reduced to about $20.5 million on appeal. Juries heard conflicting science: IARC classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic and some analyses found increased lymphoma risk at high exposures, while a large farmer cohort and regulators found no clear link. Internal documents revealed company efforts to influence research. Bayer paid about $10 billion in 2020 settlements, proposed a $7.25 billion class settlement in 2026, and won a 7–2 Supreme Court ruling in June 2026 limiting failure-to-warn claims. The ruling settled a legal question, not the science, and people with heavy exposure should take precautions and seek medical and legal advice as needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the first Roundup trial really award $289 million?

Yes, but the amount was reduced. In 2018 a jury awarded school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson $289 million, including $250 million in punitive damages, after finding Roundup contributed to his terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The trial judge cut it to $78.5 million, and a California appeals court later reduced it to about $20.5 million while upholding the finding that Monsanto was liable.

Does Roundup cause cancer?

Scientific assessments disagree. The World Health Organization’s cancer agency classified glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, and some analyses link high exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. However, the U.S. EPA and a large study of farmers found no clear association. The question remains genuinely contested among scientists and regulators.

What did the 2026 Supreme Court decide about Roundup?

In June 2026 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal pesticide law preempts state failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has not required a cancer warning, overturning a verdict against Monsanto. The decision settled a legal question about state versus federal law; it did not determine whether glyphosate causes cancer, which remains scientifically disputed.

Can people still get compensation for Roundup-related cancer?

A proposed class settlement of about $7.25 billion is intended to compensate current and future claimants, on top of roughly $10 billion Bayer paid in 2020 settlements. Because the Supreme Court ruling limits failure-to-warn lawsuits, the class settlement is likely the main avenue for compensation; affected people should consult a qualified attorney about deadlines.

How can I reduce my exposure to glyphosate?

People who apply herbicides should wear gloves, long sleeves, and eye protection and follow label directions. At home, mulching and hand-weeding avoid chemicals entirely. Choosing organic grains, oats, and legumes reduces dietary residues, since glyphosate is often sprayed on conventional crops shortly before harvest. U.S. residential Roundup products replaced glyphosate in 2023.

References

1. Guyton KZ, Loomis D, Grosse Y, et al. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Lancet Oncology. 2015;16(5):490–491. PMID 25801782
2. Schinasi L, Leon ME. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014;11(4):4449–4527. PMID 24762670
3. Zhang L, Rana I, Shaffer RM, et al. Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. 2019;781:186–206. PMID 31342895
4. Andreotti G, Koutros S, Hofmann JN, et al. Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2018;110(5):509–516. PMID 29136183
5. Leon ME, Schinasi LH, Lebailly P, et al. Pesticide use and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoid malignancies in agricultural cohorts from France, Norway and the USA: a pooled analysis from the AGRICOH consortium. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2019;48(5):1519–1535. PMID 30880337
6. McHenry LB. The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well. International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine. 2018;29(3–4):193–205. PMID 29843257
7. Ospina M, Schütze A, Morales-Agudelo P, et al. Exposure to glyphosate in the United States: Data from the 2013–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environment International. 2022;170:107620. PMID 36368224
8. Gray DC / WCAX. Supreme Court blocks Roundup cancer lawsuit. June 25, 2026. wcax.com
9. Johnson v. Monsanto Co. case summary. wikipedia.org

Last updated: October 6, 2026