Title is misleading. The case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Durnell, and Wikipedia's summary is:

>The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Actpreempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA.

In other words, they don't have immunity from cancer lawsuits. They have immunity from cancer lawsuits stemming from being noncompliant with state labeling laws.

Editorialized title.

Actual ruling seems reasonable from a legal perspective. It is the EPA's job to determine if a chemical is safe. If they say it is, why is it the court's job to say otherwise?

Absolute disgrace.

The people who put shit like this out, referring to the Supreme Court as the "Trump administration" siding with Bayer in favor of cancer and poison, think you are too stupid to find that "Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Jackson, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined."

Most Americans do not understand the constitutional role of the judicial branch, and rhetoric like this exploits that in ways that are really bad for the integrity of our government and political discourse.

Supreme Court opinions are public and generally comprehensible by an average citizen. Please take even the tiniest amount of effort to understand how our government process works before buying into flamebait from media orgs and NGOs that profit from your ignorance. And if you have a problem with our laws, it's usually best to blame the lawmakers first.

...Health Insurance industry celebrates long term reliance goals.

Sorry last post errored, just saying Israel lobby pushed SCOTUS to legalize Roundup because they are using it for chem warfare in Lebanon. And also they are pushing SCOTUS to replace 1st Amendment with IHRA Definition of Antisemitism