LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday asked the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief in Bayer's petition to the court on the weedkiller Roundup, as the court continues to consider whether to take the case.

Bayer asked the court to consider resolving what the company has identified as a split among lower courts on the question of whether federal law on pesticide labels supersedes state failure-to-warn laws.

The Roundup lawsuits are based on alleged failure-to-warn claims by individual plaintiffs who say glyphosate in Roundup caused their cancer.

Bayer's petition, filed on April 4, 2025, was in response to the verdict in John L. Durnell v Monsanto. In the case, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a $1.25 million verdict based solely on a state law failure-to-warn claim.

"We see this request as an encouraging step and look forward to hearing the views of the government on FIFRA's (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) federal preemption provision, which relies on language common to several federal laws that cover a number of industries," Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said in a statement to DTN.

"The security and affordability of the food supply depend on companies' and farmers' ability to rely on decisions made by responsible federal regulatory authorities. When courts permit companies to be punished under state law for following federal law, it makes companies like ours a prime target of the litigation industry and threatens farmers and innovations that patients and consumers need for their nutrition and health."

In the Durnell case, the Missouri Court of Appeals joined the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth and 11th circuits and state appellate courts in California and Oregon in holding that federal law does not preempt state laws. The Third Circuit, however, ruled the opposite in another case.

So once the solicitor general offers its views of the case, the Supreme Court would then decide on the petition during the 2025-2026 court session. If the case is accepted, the court could still decide on the merits of petition during the next session that ends in June 2026.

A decision in Bayer's favor, the company said, "could help to largely contain this litigation."

Agriculture groups have joined in Bayer's petition, filing amicus briefs with the court. That includes briefs from the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council of America, National Sorghum Producers and CropLife America.

Bayer said in a statement that it remains "committed to significantly containing the U.S. litigation" by the end of 2026 in using a "multipronged" strategy.

The company said it supports regulatory measures that would reinforce the "preemptive effect" of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's human health assessments and approved labeling for products registered under FIFRA.

COURT DENIES PROP 12 CHALLENGE

Also on Monday, the Supreme Court denied an Iowa Pork Producers Association petition on California's Proposition 12.

The petition came about after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last year rejected the IPPA's constitutional challenge to the law.

Prop 12 makes it a criminal offense and civil violation to sell whole pork meat in California unless the pig it comes from is born to a sow that was housed within 24 square feet of space and in conditions that allow a sow to turn around without touching an enclosure. Proposition 12 applies to any uncooked pork sold in the state, regardless of whether it was raised in California.

In January 2025, 23 states joined the Iowa Pork Producers Association in an appeal to the Supreme Court challenging Prop 12. Read about that here: https://www.dtnpf.com/….

The challenge stems from a previous Supreme Court ruling on the case, which determined California's law does not violate the Commerce Clause.

However, five of the nine justices in that case said Prop 12 -- which enacts a pork sales ban on farms across the country that don't follow the state's animal-housing regulations -- could "impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce" under what is known as the Pike balancing test.

That test is used by the Supreme Court to determine whether state laws are unconstitutional because they violate interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court ruled against the National Pork Producers Council in 2023 in its challenge to Prop 12. In that case, the plaintiff did not make a discrimination claim.

Read more on DTN:

"SCOTUS to Decide on Bayer Roundup Case," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on social media platform X @DTNeeley

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.