Timeline of Roundup Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Litigation
This page tracks the procedural history of litigation alleging that Roundup weed killer caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The lawsuits claim that exposure to Roundup led to cancer diagnoses. All information comes from court records and verified filings.
The Durnell Verdict
In October 2023, a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, returned a verdict in Durnell v. Monsanto. John Durnell, a Missouri resident, brought three claims alleging that Roundup caused his cancer. The jury found in his favor on one of the three claims and awarded him $1.25 million.[1]
A jury verdict is the decision reached by jurors after hearing evidence at trial. In this case, the jury agreed with Durnell on one theory of liability but not the others. The $1.25 million award was compensation for that single claim.
Supreme Court Review
On January 16, 2026, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the Durnell case. The question before the Court was whether federal pesticide law blocks state failure-to-warn claims.[1]
When the Supreme Court agrees to review a case, it means the justices have decided the legal issue is significant enough to warrant their attention. The specific issue here involved preemption: whether a federal statute governing pesticides prevents states from allowing lawsuits based on inadequate warnings about those same pesticides.
Class Settlement Preliminary Approval
At some point in 2026, before the Supreme Court issued its decision, the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granted preliminary approval of a class settlement. The settlement was designed to resolve current and future Roundup non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims.[1]
Preliminary approval is an early step in the class settlement process. It means the court has reviewed the proposed terms and found them fair enough to notify class members and schedule a final approval hearing. At this stage, the settlement is not yet final or binding.
The Supreme Court Ruling
On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Monsanto in Monsanto v. Durnell. The Court held that the federal pesticide law known as FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims. As a result, the Court overturned the $1.25 million jury award that had been entered in John Durnell's favor. Justices Jackson and Gorsuch dissented from the majority opinion.[2]
Preemption is a legal doctrine under which federal law can override or block state law. In this ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the federal statute regulating pesticide labeling leaves no room for state courts to impose additional warning requirements through tort lawsuits. The effect of the decision was to eliminate Durnell's victory and the damages he had been awarded.
Impact on Pending Cases and the Class Settlement
Following the Supreme Court's June 25, 2026 ruling, thousands of Roundup failure-to-warn lawsuits were expected to be dismissed. However, the $7.25 billion class settlement that had received preliminary approval earlier in 2026 was still set to proceed. Monsanto stated that it would continue to seek final approval of that settlement.[3]
The distinction is important. The Supreme Court ruling eliminated one category of claims: state-law failure-to-warn claims alleging that Monsanto should have provided stronger warnings about Roundup. But the class settlement, which had been negotiated separately, was designed to resolve a broader set of claims and was structured to move forward even after the preemption ruling.
Where the Litigation Stands Today
As of the most recent information in the record, the Supreme Court has ruled that federal pesticide law preempts state failure-to-warn claims related to Roundup, and thousands of such lawsuits are expected to be dismissed as a result.[2][3] The $7.25 billion class settlement covering current and future non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims related to Roundup received preliminary approval in a Missouri state court and Monsanto has indicated it will continue seeking final approval.[1][3]
The record we track does not show whether final approval of the class settlement has been granted, whether any dismissals of individual cases have been formally entered following the Supreme Court decision, or whether any appeals or further proceedings are underway in other courts.
What Is Not Known Yet
The record does not show whether the Missouri state court has granted final approval to the $7.25 billion class settlement. Preliminary approval allows the settlement process to move forward, but final approval requires additional court review and often a fairness hearing.
It is also not clear from the available record how many individual lawsuits have been formally dismissed following the Supreme Court's preemption ruling, or whether any plaintiffs have filed new claims based on theories other than failure to warn.
The record does not indicate whether there are any pending trials, scheduled hearings for final settlement approval, or other upcoming deadlines in the litigation.
Sources
- Durnell v. Monsanto (Mo. Cir. Ct., City of St. Louis) (2023-10-01). Secondary report: businesswire.com
- Monsanto v. Durnell (U.S.) (2026-06-25). Secondary report: ky3.com
- Roundup class settlement (2026-06-25). Secondary report: kbtx.com
Litigation facts on this page come from the TortIntel litigation record and the documents linked above. Last checked against that record on 2026-10-24. If you see an error, tell us and we will correct it.