On December 2, 2025, Bayer announced that the Solicitor General of the United States,
D. John Sauer1 has recommended the United States Supreme Court take up the Monsanto Co. v. Durnell2 appeal on the Roundup product litigation. The Supreme Court previously invited the Solicitor General to weigh in on the views of the United States.3 In response, Mr. Sauer’s office authored their own petition for a writ of certiorari, agreeing with Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”)’s arguments that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”)4 preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims concerning Roundup.
All legal practitioners should be familiar with the concept of personal jurisdiction and its two subsets: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction; both of which are juxtaposed with the inalienable Due Process Clause which effectively and simultaneously restricts a given court’s authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. It is no surprise that civil litigators are trained to instantly analyze and determine where a defendant corporation is headquartered and incorporated to ascertain whether a particular court maintains general jurisdiction. A substantial amount of time in contemplation is involved when analyzing the “sufficient minimum contacts” needed to advance specific jurisdiction arguments, or whether claims alleged “arise out of or even relate to” those minimum contacts in the first place.