Scales

The United States Supreme Court has sided with the maker of Roundup weedkiller in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.

The ruling on Thursday was tied to a case that came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer, a Germany-based company that acquired Roundup when it bought its original producer Monsanto in 2018.

The decision is a victory for US President Donald Trump’s administration, but one that could be tricky politically since allies in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement want to rein in pesticide use.

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company cannot face failure-to-warn lawsuits in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label.

The justices overturned a jury verdict in Missouri awarding $1.25m to a man named John Durnell who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate in Roundup. The Supreme Court agreed with Bayer that a US law that governs pesticides precludes failure-to-warn claims that are brought under state law from moving forward in court.

Bayer shares jumped nearly 18 percent following the ruling.

Trump’s administration had backed Bayer in the case.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling, said the US Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer and has not required a cancer warning on Roundup.

The law preempts Durnell’s claim because it “would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label even though federal law requires Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label without a cancer warning”, Kavanaugh wrote.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, said that Durnell’s claim would impose equivalent labelling requirements on Monsanto that the federal law requires and so should not be preempted.

Jackson called the ruling “remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell”.

Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its $63bn purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. More than 100,000 plaintiffs have filed cases in US state and federal courts alleging a cancer link, and the German drugmaking and crop science company had said that the lawsuits could threaten its ability to supply the herbicide to farmers.

The torrent of litigation already prompted Bayer to remove glyphosate from its consumer version of Roundup. Bayer said before the Supreme Court ruled that a decision in its favour could largely end the Roundup litigation.

“The US Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims,” Bayer spokesperson Tino Andresen said in a statement.

The company emphasised throughout the litigation that the EPA repeatedly found that glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved its product labels without a warning.

Facing billions of dollars in potential liability, Bayer announced in February a proposed $7.25bn settlement to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits. The settlement would not affect claims that stem from pending appeals or that fall outside the deal, according to the company. Those amount to nearly $1bn, it said.

‘Disaster for public health’

Environmental activists and others criticised the court’s ruling on Thursday.

“Once again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment. Today’s ruling is a disaster for public health,” said Tarah Heinzen, legal director at the advocacy group Food and Water Watch.

“The harm from this decision will perpetuate our cancer, infertility and general chronic disease epidemic for generations to come,” said Kelly Ryerson, co-executive director of advocacy group American Regeneration and a Make America Healthy Again activist who posts on social media under the moniker “The Glyphosate Girl”.

The sprawling dispute centres on a US law called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, that governs the sale and labelling of pesticides and bars states from imposing differing or additional requirements.

The measure prohibits pesticides that are “misbranded” with labels that lack an adequate warning to protect health and the environment.

Bayer has argued that Durnell’s claims are preempted by this law. The EPA has repeatedly approved labels without such a cancer warning, demonstrating that these products are not misbranded, the company said, adding that labels cannot be substantially changed without the agency’s approval.

Durnell’s lawyers said that despite the EPA’s registration of Roundup, the label may still be challenged as misbranded. They also said Durnell’s claims are not preempted because Missouri state law that requires products to adequately warn of dangers imposes the same requirements as FIFRA’s prohibition on misbranding.

‘A new era’

Union Investment fund manager Markus Manns called Thursday’s ruling a significant milestone for Bayer, adding that a decade after the Monsanto acquisition, the company is “entering a new era”.

“While future lawsuits are not entirely off the table, they will become considerably more difficult. A final breakthrough would come if the settlement is accepted by the plaintiffs and approved by the competent court in July. This would bring Bayer’s glyphosate litigation chapter to a definitive close, allowing management to fully refocus on operational and strategic matters,” Manns said.

Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court in 2019, claiming it failed to warn users of the dangers associated with Roundup and glyphosate.

He was diagnosed with a rare and often aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer that starts in the white blood cells, and attributed the disease to his exposure to Roundup starting in 1996. For about 20 years, he was the “spray guy” for a neighborhood association in St Louis, killing weeds at local parks without protective equipment, according to court papers.

A jury sided with Durnell in 2023, and in 2025, a state appeals court upheld that verdict.

May 9 is a venerated date on the Russian calendar. The anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II is usually commemorated with a grand military parade outside the Kremlin, on Moscow’s Red Square.

“For modern Russia, it’s the main holiday of the year,” said Oleg Ignatov, senior Russia analyst at Crisis Group. “There are two main holidays in Russia, the ninth of May and the New Year. And if you asked Russians, what is the main holiday, I think they would answer you that it’s the ninth of May.”

This year, however, for the first time in nearly 20 years, there will be no tanks, missiles or junior cadets in the parade. The decision to hold back on showcasing military equipment comes as a result of heightened security fears over the war in Ukraine.

However, personnel from higher-level military academies will still take part in the procession on foot, while the aerial portion of the programme will remain unchanged – an aerobatic show, followed by a team of Sukhoi Su-25 fighter jets painting the sky in the tricolours of the Russian flag.

In official statements, the Kremlin has referred to “the current operational situation,” and threats of “Ukrainian terrorist activity.”

Ukrainian drones are now striking deeper and deeper into Russian territory on an almost daily basis, hitting targets such as oil facilities and airfields. A recent spate of drone attacks on the oil refinery in Tuapse, on Russia’s Black Sea coast, has caused an ecological catastrophe and prompted the evacuation of the town.

“Drones are indeed the primary means to attack Russia’s territory,” explained Olha Polishchuk, research manager for Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus at Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED). “They are relatively cheap, modifiable and can travel long distances … Both Ukraine and Russia have switched to using primarily drones for their attacks.

He said that since 2025, drone strikes “completely overshadowed other attacks”.

“Their use has been effective overall; most drones are intercepted but if you send enough of them, some will reach the target.”

Fears of ‘political and psychological consequences’

Security and anti-drone defences have been tightened in the capital since the Ukrainian armed forces began sending drones there in 2023, with one striking the Kremlin itself.

Mobile internet has been periodically shut off in Moscow, Saint Petersburg and other areas of the country in the days running up to the event, with providers citing “security reasons”.

“Moscow has very strong air defence, which includes short-range surface-to-air missile systems, other missile systems, small arms and electronic warfare systems,” explained Polishchuk. “It is a multilayered system located both around and inside the city. In the past, authorities have shut down cellular networks in Moscow to complicate drone navigation.

“Ukraine very rarely attacks Moscow because the air defence would require a very large swarm of drones for any attack to land, but also because there are plenty of other strategically relevant targets that do not carry such a high risk of civilian casualties.”

Nevertheless, the Victory Day ceremonies present a clear risk. Such a concentration of troops and vehicles is vulnerable not only on the day of the parade itself but before and after, too: after all, that hardware must be stored somewhere.

“Of course, they care about drones which can fly from Ukraine, but most of these drones are being intercepted,” Crisis Group’s Ignatov told Al Jazeera. “They are more afraid of groups of people using small drones which are delivered to Russia, and used against targets inside Russia, like in Operation Spiderweb [in 2025] … Even if one or a couple of small drones hit a military parade, it may not cause a casualty, but it will have a demonstrative and psychological effect. I think what they care about is the political and psychological consequences of this.”

The Victory Day parade is a tradition from the communist era, an occasion on which the citizenry could catch a glimpse of Soviet statesmen waving from atop Lenin’s tomb, as well as a chance for the then-superpower to show off its military might. But when the USSR collapsed in December 1991, the parades were shelved for nearly two decades until they were revived by President Vladimir Putin in 2008.

Since the start of the full-scale war in 2022, the Victory Day parade has been scaled back again. Only a solitary Soviet-era T-34 tank symbolically rolled across Red Square in 2024, although other types of vehicles, such as armoured personnel carriers and mobile missile launchers, were present.

Last year’s proceedings, however, packed a little more pomp. Not only did the parade feature modern tanks, the TOS-2 Tosochka heavy flamethrower systems and Iskander ballistic missiles, but also Russian troops marching alongside Chinese soldiers.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping watched the show sitting beside Putin, one of 27 heads of state in attendance, including Brazilian President Lula da Silva and Ibrahim Traore of Burkina Faso. The turnout seemed to indicate that, despite international condemnation of the invasion of Ukraine, Moscow was not isolated.

‘Victory over Nazi barbarism’ or a ‘cynical distortion of history’

“A celebration of the Soviet and Allied defeat of Hitler’s Nazi-Fascist alliance, Victory Day is the most sacred date on Russia’s political calendar,” said British historian Geoffrey Roberts.

“As ever, Victory Day will be celebrated as a Soviet as well as a Russian victory – the result of the common struggle of all the peoples of the multinational USSR, not least millions of Ukrainians. Victory Day is for the Russian government a day of multiethnic unity. It is also a reminder of the international antifascist unity – of the Soviet-Western coalition during World War II that together saved the world from Nazi barbarism.”

The Eastern Front of the second world war, known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia, occupies a central place in Russian national memory. About 27 million Soviet citizens, including Russians, lost their lives in the conflict, more than any other country, and it was the Red Army’s soldiers that hoisted their flag over the Reichstag in Berlin in 1945. The German surrender was officially finalised on May 9.

This memory is evoked by Putin’s government today, claiming it is fighting “Nazis” on the battlefields of Ukraine.

“It appears that in modern Russia, 9 May has been twisted to actually support aggressive behaviour and militarisation,” Polishchuk said.

“It is a big source of pride which supports the notion that Russia is strong, undefeated, and will not tolerate disrespect from anyone. The more common ‘never again’ in reference to WWII became ‘we can do it again’ in Russia as a popular Victory Day slogan. This posturing becomes even more important during an ongoing war, as it supports another sort of reality – one where Russia has not made a mistake by invading Ukraine and is not currently failing to achieve its military objectives.”

According to the open-source intelligence project Oryx, more than 14,000 Russian tanks, APCs and other combat vehicles have been destroyed, captured, abandoned or otherwise lost since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022.

Modern Ukraine considers Victory Day, as celebrated in Russia today, a cynical distortion of history and seeks to discourage foreign dignitaries from attending, Polishchuk added.

“Ukraine is generally more level-headed than Russia in sticking to targets that have a military objective, but this is indeed one of the instances where the [potential] attack appears largely symbolic,” she said. “Ukraine may decide to save resources this time and not attack Moscow – it could be a sane choice since air defence will be on high alert and security concerns may already discourage participation, yet Russian authorities have no choice but to try to reduce the risk regardless.”