Supreme Court takes up Bayer’s bid to limit Roundup weed killer liability
Constitutional questions test judicial philosophy as Americans debate the role of unelected judges.
The coverage treats Bayer’s Supreme Court appeal as if it’s mainly a corporate escape hatch from “deserved” lawsuits. That framing skips a central question: when a product label is approved by federal regulators, should a patchwork of state verdicts be allowed to rewrite that standard after the fact? Conservatives aren’t obligated to defend any one company, but we should defend **a stable rule of law**.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
The Supreme Court on Friday took up a bid from Bayer to limit liability for pesticide makers, including Bayer’s Roundup weed killer, which has become the subject of numerous cancer suits. The court said it would take up the company’s petition, which was backed by the Trump administration.
It said it would only evaluate the question of [...]
Original source:
Read at KforHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
The coverage treats Bayer’s Supreme Court appeal as if it’s mainly a corporate escape hatch from “deserved” lawsuits. That framing skips a central question: when a product label is approved by federal regulators, should a patchwork of state verdicts be allowed to rewrite that standard after the fact?
Conservatives aren’t obligated to defend any one company, but we should defend a stable rule of law. If juries can impose liability for not adding warnings the EPA effectively rejected, you get regulation by lawsuit, not by accountable agencies. That erodes public trust and punishes firms for complying with the rules as written.
There’s also an America First concern here. Endless, inconsistent liability chills investment in agriculture and chemicals that keep yields high and costs down. The principle at stake is fair notice and federal consistency, not a blank check for corporate misconduct.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.