Greene Blasts Supreme Court and Trump After Bayer Wins Landmark Roundup Cancer Case

A Rare Rebuke From the Right

It's not every day that a prominent conservative voice turns fire on both the Supreme Court and a Republican president in the same breath. But that's exactly what happened last week when former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene took to social media to condemn a sweeping court victory for Bayer AG, the corporate giant behind the Roundup weedkiller brand. Greene criticized both the U.S. Supreme Court and President Donald Trump after the court sided with Bayer in a major Roundup lawsuit, saying "no one is standing up for cancer patients."

"So the Supreme Court protects Monsanto and Trump protects glyphosate. But no one is standing up for cancer patients," Greene wrote in a post on X. The comment was blunt, politically unusual, and struck a chord well beyond her usual base — landing her squarely in the middle of one of the most contentious public health debates in the country.

What the Supreme Court Actually Decided

The Court released its decision on June 25, ruling for Monsanto with a 7-2 split. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, finding in favor of Bayer and Monsanto that state laws cannot override federal regulatory standards. The case, Monsanto v. Durnell, centered on a Missouri farmer named John Durnell. In 2019, Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that he had used Monsanto's Roundup products for about 20 years and that they had caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

In 2023, a jury at the state level found for Durnell, awarding him $1.25 million. But Monsanto appealed, and the case climbed all the way to the nation's highest court. The core legal question was deceptively simple: who gets to decide what warnings go on a pesticide label — the federal government or the states? The Supreme Court affirmed that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts state-law-based failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has made a definitive determination on product safety. In plain terms, because the EPA has never required a cancer warning on Roundup, states cannot force one through the courts.

Justice Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Jackson agreed with Durnell's attorneys that the majority misunderstood FIFRA's requirements, writing that the court "ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered."

A Corporate Giant and a Mountain of Lawsuits

Bayer acquired Roundup through its $63 billion purchase of Monsanto in 2018 and has since faced more than 100,000 lawsuits alleging glyphosate causes cancer, prompting the company to remove the chemical from consumer versions of the herbicide. The stakes of this ruling could not be higher for the company. The holding in Durnell should result in the dismissal of current warnings-based claims and foreclose future claims based on state failure-to-warn theories, which make up the vast majority of claims in the litigation to date.

In response to questions about Greene's remarks, Bayer referred to its statement following the ruling, saying the decision reinforces the scientific consensus that glyphosate "is not likely to be carcinogenic." Bayer also added that much of the litigation has relied on a dated 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Critics, however, argue that federal approval is no guarantee of safety. State court litigation helped reveal allegations that Monsanto knew more about cancer risks than it disclosed and failed to provide adequate warnings to the public — and by cutting off these claims, the court has weakened one of the most important backstops protecting people when federal regulation falls short.

The Political Fault Lines Are Shifting

Greene's criticism follows Trump's February executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to secure domestic supplies of glyphosate-based herbicides and elemental phosphorus, describing the chemicals as critical to national security and agricultural production. That order drew sharp criticism from health advocates and, now, from within conservative circles as well. Greene's comments signal a growing tension inside the MAGA coalition between its traditional pro-business instincts and the Make America Healthy Again movement's skepticism of industrial chemicals.

For the tens of thousands of people who still have active claims tied to Roundup exposure, the ruling is a gut punch. Their primary legal avenue — state courts — has been effectively closed off. Whether Congress steps in to restore those rights, or whether the EPA ever revisits its stance on glyphosate, will determine what justice, if any, looks like for those who say the weedkiller cost them their health. Greene may be an unlikely champion for that cause, but her willingness to say so publicly suggests the political pressure on this issue is far from over.