By John Fritze, Sarah Owermohle, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide whether tens of thousands of people claiming the pesticide Roundup caused their cancer will have a day in court, or whether a federal law that regulates pesticide labeling will effectively block their cases from moving forward.

The court’s decision to hear the case has significant practical implications for agriculture – which heavily relies on the product – and Americans who claim Monsanto violated various laws by failing to warn them about the risk of cancer. It also raises an interesting political issue for the Trump administration, which is backing Monsanto even though HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long criticized the product.

The court will likely hear arguments in the spring.

Monsanto was purchased by German-based Bayer in 2018.

The Supreme Court appeal followed a $1.25 million jury verdict in favor of John Durnell, who sued Monsanto in Missouri state court in 2019, alleging that he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup. A state appeals court upheld that decision.

Monsanto, which has faced more than 100,000 similar claims across the country, has argued that a federal law enacted in the 1970s that gives the Environmental Protection Agency power to regulate pesticides preempts state law claims like Durnell’s. That argument, if embraced by the Supreme Court, would likely foreclose many of the pending suits against the company.

The company has already removed the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, from the consumer version of its product. But glyphosate remains the central ingredient in industrial versions widely used by farmers.

The EPA under both Democratic and Republican administration has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer and has declined to require cancer warnings on Roundup’s labeling. But in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as an agent that is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Several juries have sided with plaintiffs who sought damages after claiming they were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma because of their exposure to the product.

As the case was pending at the Supreme Court, a scientific journal retracted a landmark study it published 25 years ago concluding that glyphosate is safe. Emails uncovered as part of other litigation against the company demonstrated Monsanto employees were heavily involved in that study, a situation the journal said raised “serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability” of its authors.

“EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, does not cause cancer,” Monsanto’s attorney told the Supreme Court in an appeal filed in April. “EPA has consistently reached that conclusion after studying the extensive body of science on glyphosate for over five decades.”

Durnell said he sprayed the weedkiller in parks near his home for years.

“The result was a deadly and incurable form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer,” his attorneys told the Supreme Court. “The jury found that Roundup caused that cancer and that Monsanto was liable for Durnell’s damages.”

Monsanto claims that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state labeling requirements. But Durnell has countered that he relied on off-label advertisements from the company, which he said marketed the product as safe to spray without the use of protective equipmen

The post ON the Beat | Beethoven on the Brain, on the Town appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

LOS ANGELES (KEYT) – On Thursday, a federal judge dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit seeking access to Californian's private voter information.

"The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks an unprecedented amount of personal information related to California voters from California’s unredacted voting rolls. The requested information includes the names, social security numbers, home addresses, voting history and other sensitive information of nearly 23 million Californians," wrote Federal district Judge David O. Carter in Thursday's decision to dismiss the federal government's request. "The government's request is unprecedented and illegal."

The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 4 that decisions regarding, "the times, places, and manner of holding Elections" are delegated to Congress and managed by each state.

The Section does not mention any executive branch position, office, or department.

"State run elections mean that voters recognize their neighbors who staff polling stations, trust their Secretaries of State—whom they voted for—to keep their personally identifying information safe, and believe that they will not be targeted because of what they look like or who they vote for," explained Judge Carter in Thursday's dismissal. "The DOJ's request for the sensitive information of Californians stands to have a chilling effect on American citizens like political minority groups and working-class immigrants who may consider not registering to vote or skip casting a ballot because they are worried about how their information will be used."

Federal law does require states to maintain accurate voter rolls and allows people in most states to register to vote at their respective departments of motor vehicles.

"[T]he right to vote was won through generations of sacrifices from marginalized communities the American political system devalued, but who were determined to make the promise of democracy real," shared Judge Carter. "The pieces of legislation at issue in this litigation were not passed as an unrestricted means for the Executive to collect highly sensitive information about the American people. It is not for the Executive, or even this Court to authorize the use of civil rights legislation as a tool to forsake the privacy rights of millions of Americans. That power belongs solely to Congress."

On July 10, 2025, the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division demanded that California Secretary of State Shirley Weber turn over an electronic, unredacted copy of the state's voter registration list within 14 days citing the need to ensure compliance with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

"[T]he Attorney General is uniquely charged by Congress with the enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which were designed by Congress to ensure that states have proper and effective voter registration and voter list maintenance programs," argued the Justice Department in a press release about the nationwide lawsuits seeking voter information. "The Attorney General also has the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA) at her disposal to demand the production, inspection, and analysis of the statewide voter registration lists."

On July 22, 2025, Secretary of State Weber responded that she would ident

LOS ANGELES (KEYT) – On Thursday, a federal judge dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit seeking access to Californian's private voter information.

"The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks an unprecedented amount of personal information related to California voters from California’s unredacted voting rolls. The requested information includes the names, social security numbers, home addresses, voting history and other sensitive information of nearly 23 million Californians," wrote Federal district Judge David O. Carter in Thursday's decision to dismiss the federal government's request. "The government's request is unprecedented and illegal."

The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 4 that decisions regarding, "the times, places, and manner of holding Elections" are delegated to Congress and managed by each state.

The Section does not mention any executive branch position, office, or department.

"State run elections mean that voters recognize their neighbors who staff polling stations, trust their Secretaries of State—whom they voted for—to keep their personally identifying information safe, and believe that they will not be targeted because of what they look like or who they vote for," explained Judge Carter in Thursday's dismissal. "The DOJ's request for the sensitive information of Californians stands to have a chilling effect on American citizens like political minority groups and working-class immigrants who may consider not registering to vote or skip casting a ballot because they are worried about how their information will be used."

Federal law does require states to maintain accurate voter rolls and allows people in most states to register to vote at their respective departments of motor vehicles.

"[T]he right to vote was won through generations of sacrifices from marginalized communities the American political system devalued, but who were determined to make the promise of democracy real," shared Judge Carter. "The pieces of legislation at issue in this litigation were not passed as an unrestricted means for the Executive to collect highly sensitive information about the American people. It is not for the Executive, or even this Court to authorize the use of civil rights legislation as a tool to forsake the privacy rights of millions of Americans. That power belongs solely to Congress."

On July 10, 2025, the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division demanded that California Secretary of State Shirley Weber turn over an electronic, unredacted copy of the state's voter registration list within 14 days citing the need to ensure compliance with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

"[T]he Attorney General is uniquely charged by Congress with the enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which were designed by Congress to ensure that states have proper and effective voter registration and voter list maintenance programs," argued the Justice Department in a press release about the nationwide lawsuits seeking voter information. "The Attorney General also has the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA) at her disposal to demand the production, inspection, and analysis of the statewide voter registration lists."

On July 22, 2025, Secretary of State Weber responded that

By Haley Britzky, CNN

(CNN) — The National Guard mission in Washington, DC that has seen hundreds of troops patrol the streets of the US capital as well as undertake public service projects like trash collection and laying mulch has been extended through the end of 2026, according to two officials familiar with the matter.

The orders for the task force in Washington were expected to expire in February after they were extended for a second time in October. One official familiar with the matter said the new orders specifically run until December 31, though the second official specified that the orders could be amended to be shorter.

As of Thursday morning, there were 2,429 troops committed to the National Guard mission in DC – roughly 700 from the DC National Guard, with more than 1,700 troops from other parts of the country. Eleven states have contributed troops to the mission, including Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, West Virginia, Georgia, and Alabama.

CNN reported last month that the Guard was preparing for a more permanent presence, and that conversations had already begun about keeping troops in the city this year for the America 250th anniversary celebration, which the White House has made a priority. One source familiar with the planning previously compared the potential long-term presence of the National Guard in DC to the New York National Guard’s anti-terrorism task force, which has had troops stationed at transit hubs in New York City since the September 11 terror attacks.

One of the sources familiar with the new orders said on Friday that the extension would provide more stability for troops who up until now have had their assignments extended a few months at a time. A longer-term extension that could be shortened if needed would give troops and their families more stability with expectations, the official said.

The extension comes roughly two months after two West Virginia National Guard troops in Washington were ambushed and shot just blocks from the White House. One of the soldiers, 20-year-old Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, died; the second, 24-year-old Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, survived a critical gunshot wound to the head. An update from the West Virginia National Guard in December said Wolfe had made “extraordinary progress” and could breath on his own and stand with assistance.

Another guardsman, Staff Sgt. Jacob Hill from Alabama, died while on the mission before Thanksgiving in what officials have described as an off-duty medical emergency; a source familiar previously told CNN Hill was found unresponsive in his room.

While some National Guardsmen who have spoken to CNN expressed a sense of duty for the mission, particularly in the wake of the shooting of the two West Virginia troops, others said they felt frustrated or bored. Family members who have spoken to CNN in the past have also acknowledged the personal sacrifice of troops who may earn more in their civilian jobs than they do on National Guard pay.

A source familiar with the mission previously told CNN military leadership is working with troops who are requesting to be taken off the mission for things like school or to get back to their civilian jobs. Several dozen troops so far have requested to be taken off the mission for various reasons, the source said.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post National Guard troops to stay in Washington DC through the end of 2026 appeared first on Read more