LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- The U.S. solicitor general said the U.S. Supreme Court should grant review to Bayer on a petition filed by the company that could bring product-liability lawsuits to an end on the glyphosate-based weed killer Roundup, in an amicus brief filed with the court on Monday.

The Supreme Court held conference on the petition in June 2025 and emerged from that meeting asking for the solicitor general's input on the case.

Both sides in Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell filed briefs with the court last summer, as Bayer argued the Supreme Court should hear the case to resolve a split among lower courts on whether federal labeling laws preempt state labeling laws.

Durnell, whose attorneys argued his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was caused by his use of Roundup, contends in a brief that there is not a lower court split on the question.

The Missouri Court of Appeals joined the U.S. Court of Appeal 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled the opposite in another case, according to Bayer's filing.

The U.S. on Monday argued that when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created specific labeling requirements when it determined glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" consistently since 1991, it approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings and prohibited Bayer from adding warnings without agency approval.

The solicitor general said the appeals court in Missouri got it wrong when it held that state and federal requirements were essentially the same.

"Under Missouri law, a manufacturer is strictly liable for harms caused by an 'unreasonably dangerous' product if the manufacturer 'did not give adequate warning of the danger,'" the U.S. said in its brief.

"In determining whether a particular product is unreasonably dangerous, a Missouri jury need not consider the product's economic and social benefits, as the 'concept of unreasonable danger ... is presented to the jury as an ultimate issue without further definition.'"

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, however, the U.S. said manufacturers are required to add such warnings as they are "necessary and adequate" to protect human health and the environment.

"And in determining whether a particular pesticide will pose an 'unreasonable risk to man or the environment,' EPA 'takes into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the pesticide,'" the solicitor general said.

"Because the jury below was not instructed to account for such benefits, the jury did not apply the same substantive standard that FIFRA instructs EPA to apply in determining whether a pesticide is misbranded."

The U.S. acknowledged that its position on the Durnell case is a reversal of the previous administration's stand on the issue.

In Monsanto Co. v. Hardeman, another Roundup case in 2021, the solicitor general argued that FIFRA did not preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims.

"Since that time, a conflict has developed among the courts of appeals on the question whether FIFRA expressly preempts state-law tort claims premised on petitioner's failure to warn its customers about potential cancer risks created by use of Roundup," the U.S. told the court on Monday.

"In light of the Third Circuit's intervening decision in Schaffner (v Monsanto, 2024) and the change in administration, the United States has reexamined the arguments it pressed before this court in Hardeman and has returned to its previous position as to the scope of FIFRA preemption."

Bayer said in a statement it believes the backing of the Trump administration will be important in the court's consideration of the case.

"The support of the U.S. government is an important step and good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity," Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said in a statement.

"The stakes could not be higher as the misapplication of federal law jeopardizes the availability of innovative tools for farmers and investments in the broader U.S. economy."

Bayer said it was time for the U.S. legal system to "establish that companies cannot be punished under state laws" for complying with federal label requirements.

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 platform X @DTNeeley

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