Well, my warning to several organizations may have worked, or perhaps they got into gear themselves and realized the gravity of this case. If Monsanto prevails, it will have effectively nullified the ability to sue pesticide manufacturers for imputed injuries—and it would also allow those manufacturers to produce more dangerous products, knowing they were safe from litigation.

Of course, this only works for the industry and Big Ag and Big Chemical and the US Chamber of Commerce if the EPA is safely in the pocket of industry—which it has been for decades. And during the Trump administration things have only gotten worse, despite Lee Zeldin’s laughable claims of being MAHA-aligned.

Remember that we are actually facing 4 different, simultaneous attacks by Bayer/Monsanto to obtain its pesticide shield:

• State laws, already enacted in 2 states banning pesticide liability suits in those states, and pending in many others

• A pending federal law in the Farm Bill (not yet voted on by House or Senate but approved by the House Ag committee already) that would ban state lawsuits and do additional damage to pesticide regulation

• An Executive Order issued by President Trump to give unspecified liability protection to glyphosate and enhance US production of glyphosate

• The current Supreme Court challenge, in which the Trump/Bondi/Blanche DOJ has filed 2 amici asking the Court to rule for Monsanto

Here is the good news: There are now, finally, about as many pro-Durnell amici as there are pro-Monsanto amici. You can see the list, and view the filings for each here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/403443/20260401145353012_Durnell%20v.%20Monsanto%20Co.%20-%20Amicus%20Brief_Gray.pdf

There will be a Rally on the steps of the Supreme Court the day of the oral arguments in the case, on April 27: the People Versus Poison event.

Consider attending, calling your representative about this travesty, and ponder the unconsititutionality of taking a whole class of consumer products and granting them a liability shield via a crooked EPA, donations to Congress and state legislators, and a corrupt Executive branch. Yet the Constitution says you have the right to take any federal case to a jury trial in which more than a pittance of money ($20) is at stake.

The Seventh Amendment states: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” This applies to federal civil cases involving legal (not equitable) claims, ensuring that juries decide factual issues when significant monetary value is at stake. The $20 threshold, set in 1791, has not been adjusted for inflation and is largely symbolic today, as federal courts typically require disputes to exceed $75,000 under diversity jurisdiction rules (28 U.S.C. §1332).

However, almost every state does have a provision for jury trials in civil cases in its Constitution. So wiping out this potential form of tort redress is huge, is a basic Constitutional issue, and yet we must fight it on 4 fronts simultaneously, due to the deep pockets of Bayer/Monsanto, and its policy to tie US agriculture to its Roundup-Ready GMO seed and pesticide combinations. And there are similar combinations in development by Bayer, and similar combinations developed by other Big Ag companies. Seeds are the foundation of agriculture, the foundation of life, and yet crooked Bayer, with its kamikaze seeds, is the biggest seed company on earth—and much of the food we all eat, at least in restaurants, relies on Bayer.

For Bayer, this is an existential fight. It may be for us as well.

Below is a copy of the Supreme Court docket with its list of filings. Go to the docket URL to read each one. You can see that some of our favorite NGOs have filed briefs, including CHD, Stand for Health Freedom and Farm Action—and many of the states have as well. I have breathed a sigh of relief that the Court will now have a balanced palette of information to consider, for such a potentially precedent-setting case.